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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned, without confirming that the operation is read-only, requires a valid session, or has no side effects. This is a significant gap for a getter with zero annotation coverage.

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 immediately states the action and lists the output contents. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, and the description lists the expected return data (dimensions, area, vertices, cutouts) in the absence of an output schema. However, it omits details like units, coordinate system, and invalid-session behavior, which would make it more complete.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (session_id) with a clear description and 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it receives the baseline score for high coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'board outline', and lists the key data types (dimensions, area, vertices, cutouts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like pcb_get_drill_table or pcb_get_design_rules.

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 when board outline information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is ambiguous but not misleading.

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