export_pcb

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

The annotations (idempotentHint=true) indicate repeated exports are safe, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful details such as DXF-specific options (units, contours, etc.) and that layers are required for DXF, which helps the agent understand parameter dependencies. However, it does not disclose things like naming conventions for output files or overwrite behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 well-structured with a clear summary line and a parameter list, making it easy to scan. It is slightly long due to the parameter listing, but each line adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and the parameter documentation is organized.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the essential context, especially the DXF-specific requirements. It provides enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention output directory handling and default file naming. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value documentation.

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 description must compensate for all 9 parameters. The description provides brief explanations for most parameters, but many are minimal (e.g., 'Optional; omit to use the configured default') and do not explain format constraints or default values beyond what the schema shows. It adds clarity on DXF-only options, but lacks deeper semantics like allowed layer names or how output paths are constructed.

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 exports a PCB to PDF, SVG, or DXF format, distinguishing it from other export tools like export_schematic or export_gerbers. It identifies the key resource (PCB) and the supported output formats, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling export tools.

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 provides clear usage context: specifies that layers are required for DXF, and that output units and certain options are DXF-only. It implies when to use this tool (for PCB exports in these formats) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like export_gerbers.

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