pcb_parse_layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the return value (session_id) and the side effect of writing parsed data into an existing session when session_id is supplied, preserving playbook state. It doesn't mention error handling or file access constraints, but the core state-changing behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence declares the action and supported formats, while the second explains the output and optional session reuse. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential elements: supported formats, return value, and optional session integration. It doesn't address potential errors or format-specific nuances, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All three parameters have full descriptions in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond repeating the format list and session_id behavior already captured in the schema, thus it neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'Parse a PCB layout file' and lists explicit formats (KiCad, ODB++, Gerber, Altium, IPC-2581), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pcb_parse_schematic and pcb_parse_bom. It also states the output ('Returns session_id'), making the tool's primary function unmistakable.

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 context by explaining how to integrate with pcb_start_professional_review and the effect of supplying a session_id (preserves playbook state). However, it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool or naming alternative parse tools for other file types, so it's not a full usage guideline.

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