pcb_summary

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so most of the safety burden is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: it operates on a live editor session, requires the API enabled and the board open, and explains the failure path via kicad_doctor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and reported contents, followed by the prerequisite and remediation. No filler or 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers scope of reporting, environment prerequisites and the fallback path. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains board_path and the omit-to-use-open-board behavior. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints, which is the baseline 3 for a fully-covered single param.

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 (Describe) and resource (the board open in KiCad's PCB Editor) and enumerates exactly what is reported: title block, copper layer count, enabled layers, outline size, item counts, stackup and netclass rules. This scope distinguishes it from narrower siblings like pcb_list_items, pcb_net_stats and stackup_info.

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 preconditions (KiCad running with the API enabled and the board open) and routes the agent to kicad_doctor when they are not met. It does not contrast against sibling summary tools, but the applied context is clear enough to decide when to call it.

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