kicad_get_tools_in_category

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

The description only restates the read-only nature implied by the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds no extra context such as what happens if an invalid category is given, whether the tool returns an empty list, or any rate limits. Since the annotations already declare safety, the description contributes no additional behavioral disclosure beyond a tautology.

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, focused sentence, which is concise and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified—important information like parameter meaning and usage is omitted, so the brevity is more a sign of incompleteness than deliberate conciseness. Still, it earns a middle score for not being verbose.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, but the description does not explain what categories are valid or how to discover them. There is no mention of the companion tool kicad_list_tool_categories for obtaining category names. Given that the parameter is an unconstrained string, the description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the category parameter, but it merely says 'specific category,' which is a rephrasing of the parameter name. No details are provided about valid values, format, or how to obtain them. The parameter remains ambiguous, forcing the agent to guess.

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: getting tool names within a category. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tool names'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool kicad_list_tool_categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other getter tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as kicad_list_tool_categories. It does not mention prerequisites like needing to know valid categories or suggest using a category listing tool first. Without such context, the agent is left to infer usage.

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