describe_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the data-provenance fact (content originates from import_netlist), but nothing about session scoping, error behavior when no netlist was imported, or output size; with annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and data source, then the option list. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what each view returns; annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers both parameters. For a read-only describe tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the terse "summary|pins|nets|power|peripherals" enum by explaining what each view returns (e.g. summary = MCU + peripherals + counts, power = power/ground nets). The session parameter is left to the 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?

Specific verb ("Read") plus a specific resource ("the BoardDescription imported by import_netlist"), and it enumerates the five selectable views. An agent can tell this apart from validate_board, inspect_project, or describe_framework without opening any schema.

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?

It states the precondition clearly (this reads what import_netlist produced) and explains what each "what" value yields, which is the main selection decision an agent faces. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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