pcb_get_board_summary

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description 'summarize' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations, only specifying it targets the 'current board,' so it neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core function efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no-input tool with an output schema available, the description sufficiently indicates the action and target. It could be more explicit about what the summary includes, but the output schema likely fills that gap, making it reasonably complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the empty schema is fully covered and there is nothing for the description to explain. This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 states the tool summarizes the current board, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this from similar tools such as get_board_stats or pcb_get_board_as_string, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 that retrieve board information. It simply states the action without any context, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools.

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