get_board_design_settings

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

The description provides the return type (dictionary with track widths, clearances, via specs) and an example, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or behavior when called without an open board. No annotations are present to supplement.

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 with three short sentences and an example. No unnecessary information; every part is useful.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the return structure and provides an example. However, it does not mention error conditions or prerequisites.

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 no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the shape and example of the return value, which is not 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves board design rules and constraints, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('board design settings'). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_board_info or get_layers.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for design settings, but does not mention when not to use it or point to siblings for other information.

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