add_pcb_line

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

Annotations provide no safety or behavioral hints (all false), so the description must disclose traits. It only states 'add a graphic line', implying a creation action, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether overlapping lines are allowed), undo behavior, error conditions, or permissions. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 a clear one-line purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. No unnecessary sentences. However, the parameter descriptions are repetitive (e.g., 'Start X' is terse) and could be slightly more efficient.

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?

With an output schema present (not provided), the description is adequate for inputs but omits any mention of return values, error handling, or usage constraints. Given the tool's simplicity and number of sibling tools, slightly more context (e.g., layer restrictions) would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic explanations (e.g., 'Start X', 'Layer (e.g. "Edge.Cuts")'), but lacks explicit units for coordinates (though mm is typical) and doesn't clarify coordinate system. This provides marginal value beyond the schema's titles but not enough for a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's action: adding a graphic line to a PCB, and specifies common layers like edge cuts and silkscreen. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on lines rather than text, zones, or other elements.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., add_pcb_text, add_copper_zone). No context about prerequisites or alternative tools is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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