kicad_get_project_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a slight nuance with 'currently configured' indicating it reflects the current session state, but no other behavioral details are provided. This aligns with the calibration example: with annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the tool's purpose and is perfectly front-loaded.

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 has no parameters, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description is sufficiently complete. It does not need to explain return values or additional context beyond what is already provided.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to elaborate on, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 'Show the currently configured KiCad project paths' uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource (project paths), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kicad_set_project or kicad_list_recent_projects. The scope is 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?

The description implies usage when the current KiCad project paths are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given the simple getter nature, the context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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