list_schematic_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields and filtering behavior, which are behavioral traits, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error conditions or path requirements. The verb 'List' implies non-destructive, but more detail would increase 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 a single sentence, clearly front-loaded with the verb and resource. It concisely lists output fields and the filtering capability without extraneous information. Every word contributes value.

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 description explains what the tool returns and that filters exist, which is adequate for a simple list tool. However, it omits details about parameter semantics and does not provide guidance on when to use the tool relative to siblings. The lack of an output schema puts more burden on the description, but it covers core return fields.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'glob patterns' but does not explain that 'value' and 'reference' parameters are the glob filters or what 'limit' controls. This leaves parameter meanings under-specified beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 function: listing symbols in a .kicad_sch file, and specifies the exact data fields returned (reference, value, lib_id, position, footprint). This verb+resource+scope structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks_vias and list_symbol_libraries.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving placed symbols from a schematic file and mentions glob filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_symbols or list_symbol_libraries. There is no exclusion or comparison context, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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