list_symbol_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the key detail that the tool resolves both global and project sym-lib-tables, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what happens when project_dir is null, nor does it hint at the output structure, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 that is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It is concise with no filler or redundant information, earning a top score.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be lengthy. However, it lacks any mention of the return format or how the project_dir parameter alters behavior, which are meaningful gaps for this context. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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. The only parameter, project_dir, is not explicitly explained in the description. The phrase 'global and project sym-lib-tables' indirectly implies that project_dir selects the project table, but it does not describe the effect of null vs. a provided path, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'symbol libraries available', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_schematic_symbols (which lists symbols on a schematic) and search_symbols (which searches for symbols). Mentioning the resolution of KiCad's global and project sym-lib-tables further clarifies the exact scope.

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 enumerating library definitions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as search_symbols or list_schematic_symbols. There is no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, so usage context is only implicitly derived from the wording.

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