run_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It includes a warning about action name instability between versions, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens upon success or failure, whether the action produces output, or any side effects beyond triggering.

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 extremely concise, starting with the clear purpose, followed by a critical warning, then concrete examples. No extraneous text; every sentence serves a 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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essentials: purpose, warning, and examples. However, it could be more complete by specifying the return behavior or error handling, which is especially relevant for a mutation 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?

The input schema has a single string 'action' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds value by listing four known action examples and a caution about instability. However, it does not explain the naming convention or indicate if other actions are valid, leaving some ambiguity.

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 triggers a KiCad TOOL_ACTION in the editor with specific verb and resource. It lists known actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform more specific tasks like run_drc or run_erc. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes a valid TOOL_ACTION.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like run_drc or direct editing functions. It warns about instability but does not indicate preferred use cases or alternatives, leaving the agent unclear about tool selection.

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