kicad.open_project

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 discloses the session state side effect, but omits other behavioral traits such as error handling when the file doesn't exist, idempotency, or file locking behavior.

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 three efficient components: purpose declaration, behavioral context, and concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (covering return values) and the tool has only one parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by mentioning error conditions (e.g., file not found) or prerequisites, but adequately covers the core functionality.

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. The example 'open_project(path='/path/to/project.kicad_pro')' implicitly demonstrates the expected file extension and format, but lacks explicit semantic description of what the path parameter represents.

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 ('Open an existing KiCad project') and distinguishes itself from sibling create_project by specifying 'existing'. It also explains the critical side effect of setting 'session context for all subsequent tools'.

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 implies this is a prerequisite tool by noting it sets session context for subsequent tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_project, and doesn't state that it must be called before other project-specific operations.

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