get_board_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by listing the exact return fields and emphasizes that it is a 'cheap orientation call,' indicating low cost. It does not cover error cases, but for a simple summary tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second provides usage context. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the purpose, the specific items returned, and the usage context. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details; it focuses on output instead, which is appropriate.

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 action ('Summarise') and resource ('the board open in KiCad'), and specifies the exact content of the summary (name, layer count, item counts, title block, origin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks_vias or get_layers, which focus on specific subsets rather than an overview.

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?

The description explicitly says 'A cheap orientation call before more specific queries,' which informs the agent when to use this tool. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, it clearly positions this as a preliminary overview, implying usage before more detailed sibling tools.

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