parse_kicad_sexpr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the output is CST-like, which hints at structure preservation, but it does not disclose behavior on malformed input, validation strictness, error handling, or whether positions/comments are preserved. These details matter for a parser and are absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action and output are stated immediately. This is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter and an output schema.

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?

With a single, self-explanatory parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient for a basic call. The main gaps are lack of error-behavior details and no mention of how this relates to the roundtrip sibling. Still, the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 provides no description for the 'text' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that the text should be KiCad S-expression text, not arbitrary S-expressions. However, it does not specify whether the parameter expects raw file contents, a path, or how large inputs are handled.

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 a specific verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('KiCad S-expression text'), and a concrete output ('structured CST-like representation'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is easily distinguishable from siblings like roundtrip_kicad_sexpr, which implies serialization back to text.

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 the use case: parse KiCad S-expression text when you need a structured representation. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over roundtrip_kicad_sexpr or any of the other sibling tools, and there are no stated exclusions or context about typical invocation scenarios.

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