Refresh Schematic In Gui

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the close/reopen mechanism, which implies in-memory GUI state is discarded and the file on disk is re-read — but it never states whether unsaved edits are lost, which is the key risk here. Adequate, not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and its purpose with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

This is a GUI-session tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of session prerequisites; the description omits the requirement for an active live GUI session, the fate of unsaved changes, and what happens if the file is not currently open. Those are the facts an agent needs before calling it.

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 50%: workspace_root is documented in the schema, but schematic_path has no description. The tool description refers only to 'the schematic'/'the file' and adds no meaning about path format (absolute vs relative), whether the path must already be open in the GUI, or how workspace_root overrides interact with it.

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 specific verb pair and resource ('Close and reopen the schematic') plus the effect ('so the GUI reloads the file'), so the agent understands this is a GUI-session refresh rather than a file operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as open_schematic_in_gui or poll_live_gui_session, which a reader must infer.

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 guidance is given: nothing says whether this is needed after external edits to the .kicad_sch file, whether a live GUI session must already be open, or how it differs from open_schematic_in_gui. The agent must guess the trigger condition entirely.

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