pcb_parse_schematic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key side effect: 'Populates schematic_components and schematic_nets on the session.' It also mentions auto format detection. However, it does not specify behaviors like session creation/reuse or whether existing data is overwritten.

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: two sentences that lead with the core purpose, then state the side effect and usage alternative. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does, what formats it supports, what data it populates, and how it relates to a sibling. It lacks some details about return values or session lifecycle, but for a parse-and-store tool, the key contextual elements are present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by listing concrete file extensions (.kicad_sch, .SchDoc, .pdf, .net) and explaining the 'auto' format detection behavior, which complements the format parameter's enum. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a schematic file' with auto format detection. It enumerates supported formats and specifies the side effect (populates schematic_components/schematic_nets). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pcb_parse_schematic_pdf by noting it is the format-agnostic option.

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 provides explicit usage direction: 'Use over pcb_parse_schematic_pdf when you want format-agnostic parsing.' It names a specific alternative and the condition for choosing this tool. However, it does not fully describe when not to use the tool or prerequisites like session handling.

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