get_board_as_string

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It states the tool retrieves the board as text, implying no side effects. However, it does not mention potential performance implications (large file size) or that it returns the raw .kicad_pcb file content. Adequate but could be more informative.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., raw KiCad PCB format) but is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

No parameters defined; schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but for zero-parameter tools, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no additional meaning is needed.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and resource (entire board content as text), with no ambiguity or confusion with sibling tools.

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?

Description implicitly indicates usage (when you need the raw board content as text). No explicit guidance on when to avoid or alternatives, but the tool is self-explanatory given its distinct purpose.

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