Get Board 2d View

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

The description transparently explains side effects: file mode writes an image next to the .kicad_pcb file and returns filePath, while inline mode returns the image directly. It also clarifies that SVG is returned as text versus PNG/JPG as rendered images. These details complement the destructiveHint: true annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise but information-dense. It opens with the core purpose, then uses examples and brief explanations to clarify layers and responseMode. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, with no repetition or filler.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all key aspects: what it renders, available formats, layer filtering, both delivery modes, and a practical warning about large boards. An output schema exists so return values are further documented, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by giving a concrete layer example (F.Cu, B.Cu, Edge.Cuts) and explaining the inline/file response modes with their delivery implications, which increases the value to 4.

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 renders a 2D image of the PCB using kicad-cli and returns PNG, JPG, or SVG. It names the specific resource (PCB) and action (render). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling export tools like export_pcb_svg, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance: layer filtering examples, responseMode choices with defaults, and a specific recommendation to use file mode for large boards to avoid MCP message-size limits. It does not discuss when to prefer alternative export tools, but within its own scope the usage context is clear.

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