pcb_annotate_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Render' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the board is not modified, nor does it describe the output format beyond 'SVG board view'. It also fails to mention any session prerequisites or potential errors, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, object, and key annotation types. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool requires a session_id and detailed annotation objects, but the schema fully documents those. The description confirms the output is an SVG board view, which satisfies the return expectation. Notably, it does not mention that a session must be created with pcb_parse_layout first, a minor gap for an otherwise complete description.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including nested annotation properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but this is compensated by the schema's thoroughness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Render' and resource 'SVG board view with annotation overlays', and enumerates the overlay types (arrows, text callouts, highlight regions, warning markers). This distinguishes it from sibling render tools like pcb_render_board which render the board without annotation overlays.

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 annotating a board render) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_render_board or pcb_render_net. It neither provides exclusions nor names alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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