Render a .dig logic circuit file to SVG or PNG using Digital's CLI, producing a visual output for inspection and testing.
Render a Digital .dig file using Digital's CLI. Kept for compatibility; use digital_export_rendered_image for the explicit SVG/PNG interface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| format | No | svg | |
| output_path | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Render' and mentions CLI, but it does not disclose whether files are written, what output is returned, whether the operation is read-only, or how errors/timeouts behave. For a tool with output_path and timeout_seconds parameters, this is a notable gap.
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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing note added without fluff. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the tool's purpose and deprecation status well but omits essential context such as parameter semantics, expected return value, output file behavior, and failure modes. It is minimally useful but not complete for safe invocation.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about path, format, output_path, or timeout_seconds. Since the description was expected to compensate for sparse schema documentation, this is a significant shortfall.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Render a Digital .dig file using Digital's CLI') and explicitly distinguishes itself from digital_export_rendered_image. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the closest sibling.
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 explicitly names digital_export_rendered_image as the preferred alternative and gives the reason: 'Kept for compatibility'. This is clear routing guidance for when to use this tool versus the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.