pcb_auto_size_board_outline

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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses the algorithm: union the embedded boards' extents, add margin on every side, and write the result as the board outline. That conveys that the existing outline is replaced and that the tool depends on embedded boards being present. It omits failure behavior when no embedded boards exist and any confirmation/undo semantics for overwriting the outline.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by usage, mechanism, argument, and return value — nothing redundant, and each line adds information an agent needs.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisite, mechanism, parameter meaning, and return shape, which is ample for a one-parameter layout tool with an output schema. The only missing piece is what happens when there are no embedded boards to union or how an existing outline is handled.

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 parameter has no schema description, but the description fully compensates by defining margin_mils as the border added on each side with a default of 100. The unit (mils) is only implied via the parameter name, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fit the board outline') and the exact operation performed (union of embedded-board extents plus margin). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pcb_get_board_outline (read) and pcb_set_board_shape (explicit shape definition).

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after pcb_panelize (or any embedded-board layout)' — a clear sequencing prerequisite naming the relevant sibling. It does not, however, contrast itself with alternatives such as pcb_set_board_shape for the case where the agent wants a manually specified outline.

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