kicad_check_version

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

Without annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it performs a version check. However, it does not disclose what happens on mismatch, return values, or error conditions. The description adds some value but lacks depth for full 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, directly to the point with no extraneous words. Every part contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for a version check action. It could mention what constitutes a match or mismatch, but overall it's adequate.

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 exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter detail, but baseline for zero params is 4. It does not mislead or omit needed parameter info.

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 the tool checks version compatibility between KiCad and kipy library, using specific verb 'Check' and resource 'connected KiCad version' and 'kipy library version'. It differentiates from sibling tools like kicad_ping which checks connectivity, not version matching.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for a connection, or when a mismatch should be checked. Lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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