sch_get_bounding_boxes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the bounding boxes are heuristic estimates because KiCad does not expose exact extents via the file API, and they are conservative enough to avoid overlap in practice. This informs the user about reliability and accuracy, which is critical for correct interpretation of results.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence immediately states the core functionality. The second sentence provides usage guidance and a caveat. The final sentence summarizes the returned data. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary verbosity, earning it a perfect score.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, when to use it, the heuristic nature of the results, and the specific data fields included. No important information is missing, and the given context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It still adds value by describing the return values (centre position, corner coordinates, occupied-area summary), which complements the output schema.

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 that the tool returns the estimated bounding box of every symbol in the active schematic. The verb 'Return' with the specific resource ('bounding box of every symbol') and scope ('active schematic') precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its use case for placement planning before adding symbols.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before calling sch_add_symbol or sch_build_circuit' to understand occupied sheet areas. This provides clear contextual guidance and references specific sibling tools, making the usage conditions unmistakable. No exclusion criteria are needed due to the tool's specific niche.

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