kicad_ctrl_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: uploads the .kicad_pcb, parses nets, returns inventory and PDF. It implies a read-only analysis with no destructive effects. It could mention that no modifications are made to the file, but the information provided is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 at three sentences, each providing unique value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the process and output, and the third provides critical usage guidance. No waste, well-structured.

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 three parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the input, process, and output adequately. It also contextualizes the tool within a larger workflow by referencing the next sibling tool. The output schema is available for detailed return structure, so the description need not elaborate on return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. The description only adds 'optional ECN identifier to extract affected nets' and 'optional explicit list of net names to analyze', which are already in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, hence baseline score.

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 analyzes a PCB for affected nets, specifying the upload of .kicad_pcb, parsing of nets, and returns: inventory of tracks/vias per net and a highlight overlay PDF. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kicad_ctrl_propose_ripup by positioning as 'Station 1' and referencing the follow-up step.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'IMPORTANT: Review the results before proceeding. Ask the operator to approve before calling kicad_ctrl_propose_ripup.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool (as a preliminary analysis) and what to avoid (proceeding to ripup without review).

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