mfg_check_import_support

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

The description adds context beyond the openWorldHint annotation by clarifying that the tool queries the detected KiCad CLI's advertised formats. The word 'Report' suggests a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral signal not explicitly present in the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, with no unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter check tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool's behavior and non-mutating intent, though it could benefit from explicit usage guidance and more concrete format values.

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 'format' parameter has no schema description or enum, so the description's qualifier 'board-import format' adds some meaning. However, it does not list valid values or provide examples, leaving the agent to infer format strings from sibling tool names.

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 phrase 'Report whether' and clearly identifies the resource ('detected KiCad CLI') and the subject ('a given board-import format'). It distinguishes this from sibling mfg_import_* tools, which actually perform imports rather than checking support.

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 this is a pre-import check by focusing on whether the CLI supports a format, but it does not explicitly state 'use before importing' or mention alternatives like mfg_import_geda. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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