capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: that results are organized by execution channel and that it reports negative knowledge (what KiCad 10 makes impossible). The only gap is that it doesn't explain the filter/status semantics of the returned rows.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the tool's scope and end with the operative instruction. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers purpose, channel breakdown, and preconditions. It is nearly complete for such a simple, zero-required-parameter read tool; only the meaning of the status categories is left implicit.

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 100%, so both parameters (a substring query and a status enum) are fully documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format detail for query or status beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a clear intent: enumerate what the server can do, through which channel (cli, ipc, file), and what KiCad 10 makes impossible. This is a specific meta-resource that is easy to distinguish from all domain siblings (pcb_summary, run_erc, lib_search, etc.). It stops just short of a 5 because it never frames itself as a capability-discovery/status tool versus any conceptually adjacent sibling.

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?

"Consult it before promising the user something" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is unusual and useful guidance. It does not name an alternative or state when *not* to call it, so it stops short of a 5.

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