File-mode capabilities

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it runs in Node only (not Altium) and indicates the JSON capability flags returned. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's runtime environment and output format.

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 and well-structured, with clear labeled sections: Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites. Each sentence serves a distinct function with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and prerequisites. It is complete for the agent to decide whether to call it and interpret the result.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'Parameters: None' and adds no unnecessary detail. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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: 'Report offline / file-mode features.' The verb 'Report' and resource 'offline/file-mode features' are specific, and the example (Rust sidecar for .PcbLib) adds clarity. It distinguishes itself from siblings that focus on live schematic/PCB data.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Check if non-live file tools exist in this build.' It also notes 'Prerequisites: None.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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