validate_hierarchy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only operation. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the specific checks it performs (orphaned labels, pin mismatches, etc.), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for checks, and one for the parameter. No redundant information, and key details are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description adequately covers the tool's function and main parameter. The annotations handle safety, so the description is complete enough for an agent to decide to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains the purpose of 'schematic_path' as the path to the root .kicad_sch file, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It provides essential meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it validates hierarchical schematics for common issues, listing specific checks (orphaned labels, direction mismatches, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'flatten_hierarchy' or 'list_hierarchy' which handle structure rather than validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage after schematic creation or modification to detect issues, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, though the list of checks gives context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.