Export Schematic Svg

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

The description adds the implementation detail 'using kicad-cli', which is not present in the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing files, which is relevant given the destructiveHint: true annotation. The annotation already signals a write operation, so the description adds only marginal behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. It is immediately clear what the tool does and the method used. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations providing safety information, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks usage guidelines and fails to distinguish from similar export tools. It does not mention overwriting behavior, but given the rich structured data, this is not critical. Overall, it is minimally viable.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (outputPath, blackAndWhite, schematicPath). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Export schematic to SVG format') and resource (schematic). It is specific and informative. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'export_sch_svg', which likely performs a similar function, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other export tools such as 'export_sch_svg', 'export_svg', or 'export_pcb_svg'. There is no mention of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without comparative usage information.

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