Get Schematic View

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable implementation context: it uses kicad-cli to export SVG and converts to PNG via cairosvg, which explains the intermediate pipeline without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no redundant detail. Every clause adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage timing, and implementation detail. It could mention return type specifics, but the output schema handles that, so it is adequately complete.

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 adds minimal parameter context ('PNG by default, or SVG' aligns with the format parameter), but the schema already fully documents all four parameters.

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 returns a rasterized image of the schematic, with PNG as default and SVG as an option. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and specific resource, and distinguishes itself from export tools by emphasizing visual feedback.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for visual feedback after placing or wiring components,' providing clear context. It does not name alternatives like export_sch_svg for export tasks, but the intended use case is well communicated.

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