design_schematic_review

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

With no annotations, the description relies on text to convey behavior. It implies a read-only review by stating 'checks' and 'Review all findings', but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose output schema content. Adequate but not detailed.

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 concise with two sentences and a short note, front-loading the purpose. It lists checks efficiently without unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description adequately explains the checks performed. Minor gaps: no mention of file existence handling, but sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The description adds minor value by specifying the file extension '.kicad_sch', aligning with the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: reviewing a KiCad schematic for common design issues. It lists specific checks like unconnected pins, missing decoupling capacitors, power domain analysis, and net naming conventions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'review_schematic' or DFM 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 mentions uploading a .kicad_sch file and advises reviewing findings before layout, indicating when to use (before layout). It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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