get_schematic_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the operation is a read ("Return") and it requires an open schematic plus KiCad 11+. It says nothing about failure behavior on older versions or when no document is open, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action and scope stated first and the version caveat parenthetically appended; no wasted 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only shortfall is the absence of any note about behavior when no schematic is open or the KiCad version predates the feature.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Return the sheet hierarchy of the open schematic") and scopes it to the currently open document, which clearly separates it from siblings such as get_schematic_summary or list_symbols. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by "the open schematic" — the agent infers a document must already be open — and the "KiCad 11+ feature" note acts as a version prerequisite. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_schematic_summary or what to do when the feature is unavailable.

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