run_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key risks: unstable API, version-dependent action names, and possible side effects. It does not clarify permissions, whether actions are destructive or reversible, or whether the tool requires an active document.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and warning, followed by useful examples and a short Args section. It is appropriately sized, though the Args section mildly repeats the action parameter already visible in the schema.

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 do not need explanation. The description covers purpose, risk, and examples, but for a risky low-level escape hatch with no annotations it omits prerequisites such as whether a KiCad document must be open or how valid action names can be discovered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the single 'action' parameter is a KiCad TOOL_ACTION name and by giving three concrete example action names that demonstrate the expected format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run an arbitrary KiCad tool action by name.' It also scopes the tool as a power-user/unstable API and provides concrete action examples. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this escape hatch from sibling escape hatches such as execute_kipy or run_kicad_cli.

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?

The description implies when to use it by labeling it 'power user / unstable API' and warning that action names are not guaranteed stable and may have side effects. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over specific sibling tools or when not to use it.

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