Import Svg Logo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, signalling the tool modifies the board. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it imports as 'filled graphic polygons' and notes that 'curves are linearised automatically'. This helps the agent understand the output format and processing without contradicting the destructive hint.

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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a brief use-case note in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool involves 8 parameters and an input/output schema, but the description provides a clear overview of its purpose, default behavior, and intended use case. The schema covers parameter details, and the output schema (mentioned in context) handles return values. The description lacks some context on prerequisites or side effects, but given the annotations and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all eight parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the default layer (F.SilkS) and the auto-scaling height behavior, but these are also present in the schema descriptions, so the description adds little extra semantic value.

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: 'Imports an SVG file as filled graphic polygons onto a KiCAD PCB layer'. It specifies the resource (SVG file), target (KiCAD PCB layer), and default layer (F.SilkS). It also distinguishes itself from other import/graphics tools by focusing on placing a company/project logo.

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 indicates when to use the tool: 'Ideal for placing a company or project logo on the board'. This gives clear context for its intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the many sibling tools for graphics and imports.

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