kicad_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the diagnostic scope and that it returns remedial advice ('what to do about any problem'), which annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the enumerated checks and a single call-to-action sentence. The first sentence is somewhat list-heavy but every clause adds diagnostic scope; no filler.

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 detail is not required. The description covers what is inspected and when to invoke, which is sufficient context for a no-param diagnostic tool. It could note that the output is human/agent-readable guidance, but the gap is minor.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty schema matches the description's implication of a no-argument diagnostic call.

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 specific verb (diagnose) and resource (this server and its environment), then enumerates the concrete facets checked: answering process, kicad-cli binary, API reachability, open documents. No sibling tool overlaps with this role, so the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this first whenever another tool fails unexpectedly.' This is clear, actionable guidance for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming when-not to use it as a general health check vs. routine calls, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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