Export Pdf

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

The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, signaling that the tool writes to the filesystem and may overwrite existing files. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations provide, such as overwrite specifics or return behavior, but it does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single concise sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy with the schema while effectively summarizing the tool's core function.

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 output schema is present, the description need not explain return values. With 100% schema coverage and a clear statement of what the tool does, the description is mostly complete for a simple export tool. However, given the large number of sibling export tools, a brief note about when to prefer this over export_pcb_pdf or export_schematic_pdf would improve completeness.

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 all parameters (layers, pageSize, outputPath, blackAndWhite, frameReference) are already documented. The description's mention of 'layers, page size and colour mode' paraphrases the schema but adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey.

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 verb 'Export', the resource 'PCB layout', and the output format 'PDF document', making the tool's purpose apparent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool export_pcb_pdf, which appears to target the same resource and format, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 context: use this tool to export the PCB layout as a PDF, with optional layer, page size, and color mode selections. It implies the primary use case but does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as export_schematic_pdf, so it stops short of full guidance with exclusions.

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