Get KiCad Project Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It says 'build' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation or has side effects. No information about permissions, return format, or safety is given. The pointer to SKILL.md is external and not part of the description here.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence references an external SKILL.md file, which is a slight distraction but does not significantly reduce clarity. Overall, it is efficient and appropriately sized.

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 is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description states the input and output at a high level, but does not explain what the tree structure contains or whether the operation is safe. Given the moderate complexity and lack of annotations, it is adequate but incomplete, leaving room for additional behavioral detail.

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% with the parameter 'path' described as 'Path to a KiCad file or directory.' The description repeats this without adding details like path formats, required permissions, or examples. Therefore, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('KiCad project and hierarchical schematic trees') with an input path. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_schematic, which focus on a single schematic, and extract_circuit, which extracts circuit data.

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. It does not mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools. The description implies usage by stating its purpose, but does not provide context or exclusions.

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