kicad.create_board_outline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It establishes that this creates a mandatory board outline, but fails to specify whether calling it multiple times overwrites existing outlines, what units are used (mm vs inches), or other side effects. It meets minimum viability but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 optimally structured with the critical prerequisite front-loaded, followed by purpose, importance, and a concrete example. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (4 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It successfully communicates prerequisites and mandatory status. Minor deductions for failing to clarify the coordinate system or units for the parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the undocumented parameters. While the example demonstrates width and height usage, it completely omits explanation of the x and y parameters (origin coordinates with defaults of 100), leaving significant semantic gaps that the schema should have covered.

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 ('Draw') and resource ('PCB board outline'), effectively distinguishing it from schematic-related siblings like 'add_wire' or 'add_component'. The phrase 'Every PCB must have this' further clarifies its essential role in the PCB design workflow.

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 prerequisite '[Requires open project]' is explicitly stated at the beginning, providing critical contextual guidance. The description also indicates the tool's mandatory nature ('Every PCB must have this'), though it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it interacts with existing outlines.

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