Analyze KiCad schematic / BOM

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: it follows hierarchical sheets recursively, skips missing files with warnings, excludes power symbols and #-references, and returns specific BOM fields. This goes well beyond basic operation and covers edge cases.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core function and output fields, then explains behaviors. Each sentence provides distinct value, with no filler or redundant content.

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?

Even without annotations or an output schema, the description explains inputs, output fields, hierarchical sheet recursion, exclusions, and a follow-up tool. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already provides a 100% description of the single 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful version constraint ('KiCad 6-9') but otherwise repeats the schema's file type and path handling without substantial new meaning.

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 states a clear action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a KiCad schematic or BOM CSV'), with detailed output fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by saying 'Run this first... then pass the same path to suggest_bom_parts.'

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 usage guidance: 'Run this first to understand a design, then pass the same path to suggest_bom_parts for part suggestions.' This names an alternative (suggest_bom_parts) and when to use this tool vs. that one.

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