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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It details the output format (SVG) and the legend for layers/pads/unrouted traces, which is valuable operational context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any prerequisites beyond the PCB being routed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and encodes the color legend in parentheses. Every element is necessary, with no redundant or filler words.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should explain both input and output to be complete. While the output is thoroughly described, the complete absence of guidance on the 'prompt' parameter leaves a critical gap in usability.

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 only parameter 'prompt' is completely unexplained in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The name is generic and gives no hint about expected content, format, or purpose, making it impossible for an agent to know what to provide.

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 returns a 2-layer preview of the routed PCB in SVG format, with explicit color mapping (red=top, blue=bottom, gold=pads, dotted=unrouted). The verb '返す' (returns) and the reference to SVG preview distinguish it from sibling tools like get_netlist or get_placement.

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 this tool is used when a visual SVG preview of a routed PCB is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of other tools for different data formats, so usage context is only implied.

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