get_board_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content scope, but no output schema exists and phrases like 'design-rule highlights' leave the actual return contract ambiguous.

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 compact line with zero filler, listing the summary contents up front. The verbless fragment style is slightly terse but wastes nothing.

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, read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the main contents. It is nearly complete, with only the vagueness of 'design-rule highlights' and the missing usage context as 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing to disambiguate, and the schema correctly reflects an empty argument object.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns - board size, copper layers, part/net counts, net classes, design-rule highlights - which is a specific, recognizable resource for a summary getter and distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_layer_stack or list_nets. It omits an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use this aggregate summary versus drilling into list_nets, list_parts, get_layer_stack, or run_drc. Usage is only weakly implied by the aggregation of other tools' outputs; no conditions or alternatives are given.

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