list_open_documents

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, and 'grouped by type' hints at the result shape, but nothing states side effects, permissions, or whether an open KiCad instance is required. For a low-risk enumerator with an output schema this is adequate but thin.

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 no filler. The scope and grouping detail are stated up front and nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. For such a simple tool the description is nearly sufficient; only the absence of any usage context or environment precondition keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The 'grouped by type' phrase is the only semantic addition and it concerns output, not inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List all documents currently open in KiCad') and adds a scope qualifier ('grouped by type'). It is distinguishable from sibling listers such as list_footprints or list_symbols, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any of the many sibling list_* tools. The agent must infer the use case purely from the tool name and the phrase 'currently open'.

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