Beautify Schematic

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits: preservation of electrical connections and recoverable error returning (max 36). However, it does not mention whether the file is modified in place, reversibility, or permission requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then add important behavioral details (error limit, docs). No redundancy or filler, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 has nested object parameters and no output schema, so more context would be beneficial. The description mentions recoverable errors and provides a docs pointer, but does not describe the expected return value on success, side effects on the schematic file, or how it fits into the workflow relative to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameters (path, blocks) are clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action: 'Reassemble selected KiCad components into named functional blocks while preserving their electrical connections.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_circuit or component_search by describing its unique output and preservation guarantee.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The pointer to '/app/docs/SKILL.md' suggests a workflow but does not articulate conditions or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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