kicad_open_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses fail-closed behavior, but does not explain what happens on success (e.g., whether the board becomes active in the session), side effects, or whether it returns a result. Partial transparency.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and includes the key behavioral constraint (fail closed). Appropriate length given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input and error mode but lacks information about the return value, state changes, or relationship to sibling tools like load_board. Reasonably complete but leaves gaps.

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 a description for the single parameter 'source'. The description adds clarity by specifying 'Configured board name or .kicad_pcb/.kicad_sch path', which aligns with the schema. No additional semantic value beyond schema, so baseline 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 the tool resolves a PCB source and fails closed if the KiCad client cannot open documents. It identifies the specific action (resolving a source) and resource (PCB source), and the fail-closed behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_board which may have different error handling.

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 like load_board or kicad_session. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The implicit usage is for opening a board/schematic file, but the agent receives no decision support.

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