kicad_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds value by disclosing what state is checked (API-enabled status, open boards/schematics) and by framing the tool as a prerequisite for editing operations. There is no contradiction with the annotation.

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 short sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and immediately give the critical usage instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. However, the undocumented 'path' parameter leaves an actual invocation detail unexplained, so the definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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 has one optional parameter, 'path', with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. An agent has no way to know what 'path' refers to or whether passing it changes the query behavior, making this a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool as a status/preflight check: it asks whether KiCad is running with its API enabled and which boards/schematics are open. It also distinguishes itself from sibling editing tools by stating that it should be called before any of them.

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 instruction 'Call before any editing tool' is an explicit, actionable usage condition. It also explains why: editing tools operate on the board currently open in the KiCad PCB editor. It does not mention when not to use it or name a direct alternative, but for a status gate that is a minor gap.

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