summarize_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the summary covers but does not state whether it's read-only, requires a path, or has any side effects. The output schema exists but that does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

While the description lists the summary contents, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings and does not explain the path parameter. The presence of an output schema helps but does not fill these gaps, making the description incomplete for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention the path parameter at all, providing no guidance on what value to supply or its purpose.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('a PCB or schematic'), and lists the covered aspects (components, nets, layers, sheets, connectivity). This distinguishes it from more specific tools like list_components or get_connectivity_graph, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_document_info.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for getting a summary but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, which is especially relevant given the large set of sibling tools.

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