Export Svg

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partially disclosed. The description adds context about the output being a vector image and optional layers/color mode, but it does not detail side effects like file overwriting or prerequisites. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that states the core function and key options without waste. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 straightforward export tool with a full input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and options. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., board must be loaded) and does not differentiate from the nearly identical export_pcb_svg, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the low complexity and rich schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with all four parameters described in the schema. The description only mentions 'layers and colour mode' at a high level, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 function: exporting the PCB layout as an SVG vector image. It specifies the resource (PCB layout), action (export), and format (SVG), and distinguishes from schematic export tools like export_schematic_svg by directly mentioning 'PCB layout'.

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 usage by indicating this is for exporting the current PCB layout, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus siblings like export_pcb_svg or export_pcb_pdf. No alternatives or exclusions are given, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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