pcb_validate_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Checks' hints at a read-only validation pass, but it doesn't say whether KiCad is invoked externally, whether a report artifact is written, whether configured rule sets are required, or how long it takes — all material for a process-running tool.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than trim.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain what comes back (pass/fail status, violation list, report location) and what failure looks like. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict behavior beyond the one-line purpose.

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% for the single required parameter 'name', and the description only indirectly implies it identifies the existing workspace. It never states the expected identifier format or whether it is a workspace name vs. path.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('configured KiCad ERC/DRC checks'), and a scope ('for an existing workspace'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like pcb_generate_project or pcb_create_workspace by operating on an existing workspace, though it never names an alternative.

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?

'For an existing workspace' implies the prerequisite that the workspace must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no sibling is referenced. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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