sch_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool 'finds' problems and gives the coordinate convention ('mm, y down'), implying a read-only analysis, but it never explicitly says whether the tool modifies files or how it returns results. This is a useful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences plus a coordinate note, with the core purpose front-loaded and a compact, specific list of checks. No wasted words; every clause contributes directly to selection or invocation.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the tool returns and whether it has side effects. It gives a good sense of the check scope and coordinate system, but omits output format and read-only guarantee, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds little beyond the schema. It does not expand on 'codes,' 'sheet,' or 'severity,' but the list of layout problems implies what the checks cover, and the schema already provides useful descriptions for three of the four parameters. The description does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented severity parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find layout problems in a KiCad schematic') and enumerates concrete check categories (overlapping texts, text on symbols, dangling wires, etc.), which clearly set it apart from pcb_lint and other schematic tools. The list makes the tool's scope immediately identifiable without needing to open the schema.

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 explicitly says 'Run after every schematic edit,' giving a clear trigger and context for use. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to infer when it applies.

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