pcb_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It suggests a read-only summarization but does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention what kind of statistics are returned, whether a valid PCB file is required, or how the tool handles missing or invalid paths.

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 telegraphic line with no filler, and the key concept 'Board statistics' is front-loaded. It could be improved by adding a verb, but it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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: one required string parameter and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits file-format expectations and does not position the tool against its list-oriented siblings, leaving some context gaps.

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 sole parameter, pcb_path, is self-descriptive as a path to a PCB, but the 0% schema description coverage means the description should compensate. It does not explain the expected file format, path type, or any constraints beyond the schema's required flag.

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 identifies 'Board statistics' and enumerates the concrete data areas (layers, dimensions, footprints, tracks, vias, zones), so an agent can tell it summarizes board characteristics. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'compute', but the noun 'statistics' conveys the operation clearly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use pcb_statistics instead of sibling tools such as list_footprints, list_components, or pcb_connectivity. The contrast between 'statistics' and 'list' is only implicit, so the agent must infer selection criteria.

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