kicad.design_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses the critical prerequisite (open project required) and implies read-only nature via 'summary,' but does not explicitly state safety characteristics (read-only, non-destructive) or idempotency. Given the presence of destructive siblings (delete_component, move_component), explicit confirmation of read-only behavior would strengthen trust.

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 with zero waste: front-loads the prerequisite and core functionality with specific metrics in sentence one, and provides usage context in sentence two. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Appropriately complete given zero parameters and existence of output schema. Description enumerates the specific metrics included in the summary (dimensions, counts, clearances), providing sufficient context for an agent to understand what data is returned without duplicating the output schema. Prerequisites are clearly stated.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per rubric, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. Description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource (board/design) and specific outputs (dimensions, component counts, min trace/space), distinguishing it from sibling export tools like export_gerbers or list operations like list_components. Lacks an explicit verb ('Generates' or 'Retrieves'), but the noun phrase 'Board summary' combined with the specific metrics listed provides sufficient clarity.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite '[Requires open project]' and provides clear usage guidance ('Use before export as a sanity check'), establishing the temporal relationship to export operations. Does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently implied.

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