run_kicad_cli

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says the command is arbitrary, which hints at broad power, but discloses nothing about side effects, file modification, permissions, sandboxing, error handling, or whether it can be destructive. For an escape-hatch CLI runner, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then a clearly labeled Args section with examples. It avoids filler, though the formatting is slightly informal and could be tightened.

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 complex (arbitrary CLI escape hatch), annotations are absent, and the schema is minimal. The description covers basic invocation and parameter format but omits critical behavioral context such as safety, whether commands are read-only or modifying, output/error behavior, and environment assumptions. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the remaining gaps are too large for the tool's complexity.

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 explain the single parameter. It defines 'args' as the argument list after the binary, gives concrete examples like ['pcb', 'export', 'gerbers', ...] and ['version'], and tells the agent to use the open board's path from get_board_summary — adding substantial meaning beyond the bare array-of-strings schema.

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 ('Run') and resource ('kicad-cli command') and adds the scope 'arbitrary' plus the role 'escape hatch for any export'. It implies differentiation from dedicated export siblings but does not name them, so it is clear without being maximally distinguishing.

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 phrase 'escape hatch for any export' implies usage when dedicated export tools do not suffice, and the args example hints at typical invocation. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer run_kicad_cli over export_gerbers, export_step, etc., nor list exclusions or prerequisites.

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