analyze_kicad_pcb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that processing happens 'locally' (no upload/auth implied) and that it is an extraction/analysis pass rather than a mutation. However, read-only behavior is only implied by 'parse and analyze', and nothing is said about failure modes (malformed S-expression, nonexistent path) or cost/latency on large boards.

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 front-loaded sentence: the action and scope come first, then the output inventory. The enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema, so it is the agent's only preview of the return payload.

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 read-only two-parameter parser with no output schema, the field inventory substitutes well for return-value documentation, and the input options are fully described. The one gap is that `required` is empty yet exactly one of `pcb_text`/`project_path` must evidently be supplied; the description does not say so, leaving open the possibility of a no-argument call.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and this is the baseline-3 case. The only meaning added is the 'or' framing, which signals that `pcb_text` and `project_path` are alternative sources for the same board rather than complementary inputs — a small but real clarification not present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Parse and analyze a KiCad `.kicad_pcb` board') and enumerates exactly what is extracted, so an agent knows what it gets back. The file-format qualifier ('KiCad .kicad_pcb', as opposed to Specctra DSN in the sibling analyze_specctra_dsn) effectively separates it from at least one alternative, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for obtaining board statistics from a KiCad file before DFM auditing or impedance calculation, and the 'from `pcb_text` or `project_path`' phrase hints at two input routes. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling DFM/audit tools.

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