pcb_get_board_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says it gets info without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, or any state dependencies. For a getter, it's likely read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated, leaving the agent guessing.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundant wording. It's front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted space.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, but the description only hints at the return content ('etc.' is vague). It doesn't specify the exact return structure or any error conditions, which could leave the agent uncertain about what to expect. For a straightforward getter, this is minimally sufficient but could be more detailed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds context about what the tool returns (board name, layers, etc.), which is helpful even though there are no params to explain. Baseline for no params is 4.

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 gets engineering information (board name, layers, etc.) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pcb_get_state or pcb_get_tracks by focusing on board-level metadata, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the tool's name and description imply it's for retrieving basic board info. Given the large sibling list, some indication of when to prefer this over pcb_get_state or pcb_get_feature_support would improve clarity.

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