kicad_list_recent_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral detail that data comes from KiCad's config files, which implies read-only access. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty list, missing config) or explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, relying on the verb 'list'.

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 that front-loads the action ('List') and resource ('recently opened KiCad projects'), with no unnecessary words or filler.

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 tool with no parameters and a provided output schema, the description fully suffices. It identifies what is listed and the data source, and since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related info beyond the tool's purpose.

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 lists recently opened KiCad projects and even specifies the source (KiCad's config files). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like kicad_scan_directory or kicad_get_project_info.

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 context by indicating it reads from config files, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the tool's unique function is clear from the name and description, and no close sibling exists.

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