Kicad Version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive read by saying 'Return', but does not confirm read-only behavior, state whether kicad-cli must be installed/reachable, or note any failure mode when the binary is missing. For a zero-parameter read tool the safety stakes are low, so this is an acceptable but not rich disclosure.

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 with no filler. It states the outcome immediately and every word earns its place.

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 the description need not enumerate return values, and for a zero-param version probe the purpose statement is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any usage context, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not attempt to invent parameter meaning, and there is nothing for it to compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('installed kicad-cli version and detected file format versions'), which is clearly distinct from every sibling, all of which perform DRC/ERC checks or mutate schematic/PCB files. The only softness is 'detected file format versions', which doesn't say what the format versions are detected from, leaving scope slightly ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for overlapping needs. An agent can infer it is a diagnostic/environment probe, but the description never says so explicitly and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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