board_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the tool as an 'orientation call' listing board elements, implying a read-only operation without side effects. The description is transparent about what the tool returns, though it does not mention any potential side effects or permissions.

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 sentence with a colon-separated list, which is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be better structured by separating the purpose from the output details.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and expected outputs. However, the lack of parameter explanation and return format details makes it slightly incomplete. The sibling tools help contextualize its role.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'project' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description fails to explain what 'project' is, how it affects the output, or why it's optional. This is a significant omission for a single-parameter tool.

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 the tool provides an overview of a board, listing specific elements like title, sheets, function blocks, key ICs, power rails, connectors, and part counts. It also says 'Make this first,' establishing it as the starting point for board analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like component and net.

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 explicitly says 'Make this first,' indicating when to use the tool (for initial orientation). It does not specify when not to use or provide explicit alternatives, but the sibling tools suggest differentiation, and the directive is clear enough.

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