open_schematic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the file-based nature and lack of IPC, which is useful, but it does not describe the output format, error handling, or whether the tool modifies anything. It is a read-like operation implied by 'summarise' but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and expected output, the second provides rationale and limitation. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview of purpose, file type, and expected summary contents. It could mention return format or file requirements, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple tool and its sibling context.

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 schema only names 'path' as a string with no description. The description's mention of '.kicad_sch file' clarifies that the path must point to a KiCad schematic file, adding meaning beyond the schema. It could be more specific about path format, but for a single parameter this is adequate.

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 opens a .kicad_sch file and produces a summary (title block, counts, child sheets). The specific verb 'Open' and resource type differentiate it from sibling tools like list_schematic_symbols or list_nets.

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 provides clear context: it works with KiCad closed because schematic access is file-based. This implies when to use (file-based, KiCad closed) and indirectly contrasts with tools that may require running KiCad, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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