obj_switch_view

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does convey the key behavioral trait that this is a non-destructive UI view change and it documents the return ("Dictionary confirming the view switch"). However, it omits whether a PCB document must be active, whether the setting persists with the document, and there is a mild internal tension between the verb "toggle" and the requirement that a target mode be supplied.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args/Returns blocks are compact and scannable. The Returns line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is verbose.

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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter view tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, accepted values, and default. The only material gap is the missing precondition that a PCB document be open and active, which is what an agent would most likely get wrong.

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 0% and the single `mode` property carries no enum or description, but the description supplies the exact accepted values ("3d" or "2d") and the default ("3d"). That is meaningful information the schema does not provide, fully closing the coverage gap; only case-sensitivity/validation remains unspecified.

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 ("Toggle between 2D and 3D view") scoped to "PCB documents", so the agent knows exactly what the tool affects. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g. obj_zoom, pcb_focus_board), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of "PCB documents" hints that an active PCB document is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement. No alternative is named for agents that instead want zooming or board focusing.

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