Export Pcb Pdf

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Reads the last SAVED state of the .kicad_pcb', which is crucial for understanding that unsaved changes are ignored. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. However, the description does not elaborate on the destructive behavior (e.g., whether it overwrites existing output files) or any side effects of file creation.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence is dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and listing the option set. The second sentence adds differentiation and the critical saved-state caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 complexity (22 parameters), the description provides a sufficient high-level overview. The output schema exists, so return-value details are handled. The description covers the key context: CLI-based, broad options, saved-state requirement, and sibling relation. The main gap is not clarifying the exclusivity or interplay of the output mode flags (modeSingle, modeSeparate, modeMultipage), which could confuse an agent, but the rich schema partially compensates.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the parameters into categories ('layer + common-layer lists, mirror, refdes/value exclusion, border+title, soldermask subtraction, DNP fab-layer modes, negative, black-and-white, theme, drill shape, and single/separate/multipage output modes'), which helps the agent understand the scope of options. However, it does not disambiguate interactions between mode parameters (e.g., single vs separate vs multipage), which could be ambiguous.

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's purpose: 'Plot the PCB layout to PDF via kicad-cli'. It names the specific resource (PCB layout), the action (plot to PDF), and the mechanism (kicad-cli). It also distinguishes itself from sibling export_pdf by calling itself a 'Rich CLI sibling of export_pdf', making its differentiated role clear.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by highlighting the 'full layer-plot option set' and positioning the tool as a 'Rich CLI sibling of export_pdf', suggesting it is the advanced alternative. It also adds an important constraint: 'Reads the last SAVED state of the .kicad_pcb', which informs the agent to save the board first. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name specific alternatives beyond export_pdf.

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