kicad_scan_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the scan is recursive, which file extensions count as KiCad project files, or whether the operation is read-only. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect assumptions about the tool's behavior.

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 that front-loads the primary action and purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition of schema information.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits key behavioral details like recursion and file type filtering, which are relevant for a scan operation. This leaves the description minimally complete but with notable gaps.

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 provides only a 'path' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that the path should be a directory, not a file. However, it does not compensate for other missing details such as whether the path can be relative/absolute or whether it must exist, leaving the parameter semantics only partially clarified.

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 a specific verb ('Scan'), a resource ('a directory'), and the outcome ('report any KiCad project files it contains'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kicad_get_project_info or kicad_list_recent_projects, which focus on project metadata or recent projects rather than directory scanning.

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 the tool is for discovering KiCad projects within a directory, which provides basic context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kicad_list_recent_projects for known projects) or mention exclusions such as recursion behavior or supported file extensions.

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