board_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing that this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds useful context about what data the summary includes, but it does not go beyond annotations into details like caching, performance, or how the board path is resolved.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Board overview') and then lists the report contents efficiently. There is no redundant wording, though the list of items is somewhat dense and could benefit from grouping.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits guidance on the path parameter and contains no usage context for an agent deciding between board_summary and project_info/schematic_summary. It is adequate but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'path' is left unexplained in the description. With no information about what path refers to (board file, project directory, etc.), an agent cannot confidently determine how to set this optional parameter. Since coverage is low, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 states the tool provides a 'Board overview' and enumerates the specific content: outline, layers, counts, zones, design rules, and netclasses. This makes the resource and scope clear and helps differentiate it from sibling tools like schematic_summary or net_info, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'summarize'.

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 when to use the tool—when a high-level board-wide summary is needed—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as project_info or list_nets, nor does it state exclusions. The scope detail partially compensates, but guidance on choosing among closely related siblings is absent.

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