add_pcb_line

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description bears the full burden. It states it adds a line but does not mention side effects, coordinate units/origin, file modification behavior, or reversibility. Only the optional pcb_path is noted, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every line adds value, no fluff, and the structure front-loads the core action before parameter details.

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?

All 7 parameters are described with defaults and optionality noted. Missing details like coordinate units and preconditions are minor for a simple geometry-add tool. The output schema handles return values, so no description needed there. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the Args section in the description is crucial. It explains start/end coordinates, gives layer examples, states width units (mm), and clarifies pcb_path optionality. However, it omits units for x/y coordinates and the origin reference, preventing a perfect score.

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 begins with a clear verb-object statement: 'Add a graphic line to the PCB', followed by examples of layer usage (edge cuts, silkscreen). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_trace (electrical) and add_pcb_text, giving a specific resource and scope.

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 implies usage for graphic lines via examples but does not explicitly contrast with electrical trace tools or state when not to use it. It gives context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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