Kicad New Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions returning paths but does not disclose overwrite behavior, permission requirements, whether the directory must exist, or what happens if project files already exist. For a file-creating mutation, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The creation action is front-loaded and the return behavior follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return paths need not be detailed further. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain the directory parameter and basic file-creation behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It implicitly shows that 'name' drives the filenames, but it says nothing about the 'directory' parameter, its default (empty string), or how it affects file placement. Coverage is therefore only partial.

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 verb (Create), resource (new KiCad project), and the generated file types (.kicad_pro/.kicad_sch/.kicad_pcb). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, which are read, DRC/ERC, export, and schematic/PCB editing operations.

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 states only what the tool does. It gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for calling it. An agent gets no routing help from this text.

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