open_schematic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions building a graph but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the file is read-only, whether state is modified, error behavior for missing files). The output schema exists, but behavioral traits beyond reading are omitted, making this insufficient for a load-operation 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. There is zero redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's role as an apparent entry point to a suite of schematic tools, the description lacks critical context: it does not say it must be used first, nor does it mention prerequisites or error cases. The output schema covers return structure, but the operational context (e.g., needing to open a file before other tools) is absent. This is incomplete for a tool of this 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 compensate. It adds that 'path' refers to a local KiCad .kicad_sch file, giving more meaning than the bare parameter name. However, it lacks constraints like absolute path requirement, file existence, or permission needs, so it only partially covers the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Open') and resource (local KiCad .kicad_sch file) with a defined outcome (build its canonical circuit graph). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on an already-loaded schematic, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not state that it should be called before other schematic tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. The role as an entry point is implied but not articulated, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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