pcb_get_board_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return structure, arc-specific fields, and mils units, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the return shape. Although the detailed return block partly duplicates the output schema, it is organized and not padded with irrelevant text.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret its geometry output. It lacks usage routing versus alternatives, but the core retrieval behavior is fully covered.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the empty input schema is consistent with the description.

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: retrieving board outline vertices plus the bounding rectangle. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_board_info or pcb_get_board_statistics, but the geometry focus is clear.

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 explains what is returned but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many PCB-related sibling tools. The usage is only implied by the tool name and first sentence.

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