kicad.annotate_schematic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully communicates that only 'unannotated' components are affected (scope limitation) and that the operation is automatic, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this modifies the schematic file, requires a subsequent save, or is reversible.

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 a single, efficient sentence of seven words that front-loads the action ('Auto-assign') and immediately follows with the object and scope. No extraneous text is present.

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?

While the output schema handles return value documentation and the parameterless nature simplifies the contract, the description lacks essential contextual information for a CAD mutation tool—specifically, whether it operates on the current sheet or all sheets, and confirmation that it modifies design state given the absence of destructiveHint annotations.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not introduce phantom parameters, maintaining consistency with the empty schema.

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 specific action (auto-assign reference designators) and target scope (all unannotated components). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'set_reference', which likely handles manual assignment of individual references.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_reference', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an open project or schematic context before invocation.

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