list_shapes

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 'List' implies a non-mutating read, which is the key trait here, but nothing is said about result limits, pagination, or whether the board must be open/active in KiCad.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact Args block. 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 explained, and the single optional parameter is at least exemplified. The remaining gap is the unstated default-layer behavior, which matters for an agent deciding whether to pass the argument.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only declares a bare optional string named 'layer'. The description compensates partially by explaining 'Restrict to a layer name' and giving a concrete example ('Edge.Cuts' for the board outline), but it never states what the empty default means (all layers) or the layer naming convention.

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 ('List') and resource ('graphic shapes'), and even enumerates the shape kinds (lines, arcs, circles, rectangles, polygons), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_tracks, list_vias, list_zones and list_text.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only guidance is a note on what the layer argument does, which is parameter semantics rather than tool-selection context.

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