kicad.help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed documentation,' which hints at the output, but lacks details on response format, length, or whether it returns structured data vs. plain text. Adequate but minimal given the lack of safety annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose first, usage context second, concrete example third. Each sentence earns its place. Appropriate length for a simple single-parameter utility tool.

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 existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and the tool's low complexity (1 string parameter), the description successfully covers purpose, usage triggers, and parameter semantics. Sufficiently complete, though it could explicitly mention that valid topics include names of the sibling tools.

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?

Effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'for a tool or topic' clarifies that the 'topic' parameter accepts either tool names (referencing siblings) or general workflow topics. The concrete example 'help(topic='workflow')' demonstrates valid syntax and a valid value, adding significant semantic value beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed documentation') and explicitly scopes the tool to 'a tool or topic.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the 30+ sibling action tools (add_component, export_gerbers, etc.) by positioning itself as a documentation/utility tool rather than a design manipulation tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when unsure about parameters or workflow'), giving the agent a clear trigger condition. Does not explicitly name alternatives, though this is less critical for a help utility where the alternative (using other tools directly) is implicit in the context.

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