board_summary

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it reports live unsaved state and fails fast with a structured error when KiCad is unreachable or no board is open. It stops short of describing the error structure or all possible failure modes.

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 dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the exact output fields and failure behavior. Every clause earns its place because there is no output schema, making the return-value enumeration necessary rather than redundant.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned and explaining the fail-fast error behavior. Together with annotations covering safety, this gives an agent everything needed to decide to call it and understand what it returns.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output content instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('the board open in KiCad's PCB editor') and enumerates exactly what is returned: path, title block, layer counts, entity counts, outline size, and dirty state. This level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from siblings like session_status or get_selection.

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?

It implies usage by emphasizing that the summary is live and includes unsaved changes, which helps an agent understand when the data reflects the editor rather than disk. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as sync_from_disk or session_status, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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