Export Pcb Svg

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: that it reads the last saved state (not live memory) and uses kicad-cli as an external mechanism. These are useful behavioral traits not inferable from the annotations alone.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence is long but packed with relevant option names; it's not wasteful. The sibling relation and saved-state caveat are placed logically. Slightly verbose in listing every option, but acceptable for a tool with 21 parameters.

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 tool with 21 parameters and a rich schema, the description captures the essential function, the external CLI dependency, a critical behavioral note (saved state), and its relationship to a simpler sibling. It doesn't detail return values, but an output schema is present. The description is sufficiently complete given the structured context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates several parameter groups (layer lists, mirror, negative, etc.) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces that these options are available, but doesn't clarify syntax or interplay. Thus it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 action: 'Plot the PCB layout to SVG via kicad-cli'. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by calling itself 'Rich CLI sibling of export_svg', indicating a fuller-featured variant. The specific mention of the full layer-plot option set clarifies its scope.

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 clear usage context: it is the 'Rich CLI sibling of export_svg', implying use when full options are needed. It also highlights a critical prerequisite: 'Reads the last SAVED state of the .kicad_pcb', warning users to save before invoking. No explicit exclusions are stated, but context is clear enough for an informed choice.

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