kicad.create_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses what files are created (.kicad_pro, .kicad_sch, .kicad_pcb), indicating mutation behavior. Missing details on idempotency (overwrite behavior?), directory creation, and error conditions.

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?

Highly efficient two-sentence structure: first sentence declares purpose and artifacts, second provides actionable example. No redundant words or repetition of schema structure. Information density is high.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward 2-parameter creation tool with output schema present. Covers the essential 'what it creates' but omits edge case behavior (e.g., existing files, directory auto-creation). Sufficient for agent selection but leaves operational ambiguity.

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 has 0% description coverage, requiring description to compensate. The example clarifies that 'name' is the project identifier and 'directory' is the filesystem path. Could improve by specifying absolute vs. relative path handling or naming constraints, but baseline semantic meaning is conveyed.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (Create), resource (KiCad project), and scope (generates .kicad_pro, .kicad_sch, and .kicad_pcb files). Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'open_project' by emphasizing file creation vs. opening existing.

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?

Provides a concrete code example showing parameter usage (name='my_board', directory='/path/to/dir'), which implicitly guides usage. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'open_project' or prerequisites like directory existence requirements.

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