inspect_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'without modifying it', signaling a read-only operation, and mentions 'configured workspace', indicating a scoping constraint. It does not detail error handling or return values, but the output schema covers return specifics.

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 that communicates the tool's purpose and safety without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and its read-only nature. The only missing element is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over inspect_board_ir, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward inspection tool.

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 only defines 'path' with a title, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by implying the path refers to a .kicad_pcb file inside the workspace, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Path'. It does not explicitly state path format (e.g., absolute/relative), but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 states the tool inspects a .kicad_pcb file within the configured workspace, using a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource (file). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the file type and read-only nature, setting it apart from tools like run_board_drc or observe_board_scene.

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?

Provides clear context by specifying the operation (inspect a board file) and the workspace constraint, implying when to use it (when needing to examine a PCB file without changes). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving some ambiguity relative to similar tools like inspect_board_ir.

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