analyze_project

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. 'Full review' and 'analysis' imply a read-only inspection rather than a mutation, and the listed domains disclose the analytical scope. However, it does not state whether any files are written, how it behaves when the PCB is omitted, or what assumptions are made about project validity.

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 entire definition is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and scope, and the second sentence gives the exact input requirements. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a high-complexity review tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description covers core inputs and high-level capabilities, and an output schema exists to explain return values. Still, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over its many siblings and leaves the hierarchy-following parameter semantically unaddressed, so the invocation context is only partially 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?

The description adds useful mapping not present in the schema: schematic_path should be a '.kicad_sch' file, and pcb_path is optional '.kicad_pcb'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation matters, but the third parameter, follow_hierarchy, is left entirely unexplained beyond its default.

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 names a specific verb ('Full review') and resource ('KiCad project'), and enumerates concrete analysis domains: components, nets, analog/digital analysis, PCB routing, and DFM. This makes it clear the tool is a broad analysis entry point, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state how it differs from more targeted tools like list_components or verify_netlist.

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 first sentence establishes clear usage context: use this when a comprehensive review of a KiCad project is desired. It also specifies invocation inputs (schematic, optionally PCB). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool routing is given, so it falls short of the strongest level.

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