kicad_create_new_project

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'minimal project structure' includes, what 'activate' entails, whether existing files are overwritten, or any side effects on the current working project. The description is too brief to inform the agent of important behavioral consequences.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices critical details in favor of brevity. Still, it earns its place as a clean statement of the tool's primary function.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves open key questions: what files are created, does it require an empty directory, how does it affect the current project, and what does 'activate' mean exactly. The description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the full scope of the operation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'name' and 'path'. It does not clarify whether 'path' is a directory or a file path, what 'name' represents (project name, file name, etc.), or any format constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'create' with a clear resource 'new minimal KiCad project structure' and includes 'activate it', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kicad_set_project (which activates an existing project) and kicad_get_project_info (which retrieves info). The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with related tools such as kicad_set_project. The usage context is only implied by the name and the verb 'create', which is insufficient for decision-making.

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