get_board_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' does imply a non-mutating read, which is useful, but the description says nothing about ordering, whether text/dimensions on Edge.Cuts are included, or coordinate format. It stops short of the behavioral disclosure a no-annotation tool ideally provides.

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?

A single tight sentence with the layer constraint front-loaded and the parenthetical gloss doing real clarification work. No filler words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and this is a parameterless read tool. The only shortfall is the absence of a document-open precondition or a pointer to the more general list_shapes sibling.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('all graphic shapes on the Edge.Cuts layer'), and parenthetically equates it to the board outline, which is genuinely clarifying for agents that don't know KiCad layering. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the neighboring list_shapes or get_bounding_box tools, which could plausibly return overlapping data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g., an open document), and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name that this is the outline-specific query rather than a general shape listing.

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