Project summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds that the call is 'cheap' and flags that ERC/DRC counts may be stale, which is useful behavioral context an agent wouldn't otherwise have. It still does not say how the 'next steps' or staleness judgments are derived, but nothing is contradicted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a dense but purposeful inventory of contents. The long enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though it does make the sentence heavy.

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?

With no output schema and only one trivial parameter, the description has to set expectations for the return value, and it does so exhaustively: it lists each section of the digest, notes staleness handling, and notes the default target project. An agent can decide whether to call it and what it will get back.

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% and the single optional 'project' parameter is fully documented, so the schema does the work. The phrase 'active (or given) project' restates the schema default rather than adding new meaning such as accepted path forms.

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 names a specific resource (the project) and a clear operation (compact digest), then enumerates exactly what the digest contains: sheets, components by kind, ICs, nets, power rails, part-number coverage, missing footprints, board stats, config, ERC/DRC counts, next steps. That enumeration separates it from sibling readers like pcb_read or copper_status.

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?

'Call it when you (re)start work on a design' gives a concrete trigger and implies it's an orientation step. It does not name when not to use it or point at alternatives (e.g. per-domain readers) when only one area is needed, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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