kicad.list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the '.kicad_pro' file extension filter, but omits other important traits like whether the search is recursive, error handling for invalid directories, or safety characteristics (though 'List' implies read-only).

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 concise with two efficient statements: a clear purpose declaration followed immediately by a concrete usage example. No redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's singular purpose and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, it lacks sufficient detail on parameter constraints and behavioral edge cases to be fully complete.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While the example shows the parameter is a path string, the description fails to add crucial semantics such as whether the path must be absolute, if it requires specific permissions, or validation constraints.

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 action (List) and target resource (KiCad projects/.kicad_pro files) with scope (in a directory). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'open_project' to clarify when listing is preferred over other project operations.

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 an example invocation but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to discover projects before opening with open_project') or prerequisites (e.g., directory must exist).

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