analyze_kicad_project

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It only states 'extract detailed information' without clarifying read-only status, side effects, or output characteristics. This is insufficient for a tool operating on projects.

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 extremely short (7 words), which is concise but sacrifices informativeness. It does not efficiently convey essential details, earning a middling score.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to hint at what kind of information (e.g., schematic, netlist, PCB) is extracted. Given the large set of sibling tools, this lack of specificity undermines completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage (project_path described), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 3 applies, as the description does not explain syntax, format, or 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 states the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'KiCad project', but does not specify what detailed information is extracted, leaving its scope ambiguous. Among many KiCad-related sibling tools, it lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kicad_ctrl_analyze' or 'extract_bom_from_kicad'. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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