pcb_render_board

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

The description discloses the output type (SVG) and included board elements, which is helpful. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that rendering is non-destructive or that a valid session_id from pcb_parse_layout is required, leaving the agent to infer these from the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It avoids repetition of schema details and remains highly scannable.

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?

For a render tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary functionality and output format but omits usage context (e.g., requiring a session) and doesn't differentiate from sibling render tools. The absence of an output schema increases the burden, but the description is adequate for a basic render operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by naming 'layer filtering' and 'net/component highlighting', which correspond to the 'layers' and 'highlight_nets'/'highlight_components' parameters, thereby giving purpose to those inputs beyond their schema definitions.

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 a specific verb 'Render' with a clear resource 'SVG board view' and lists included elements (component placement, traces, vias). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_render_net and pcb_render_stackup, which focus on different visualizations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other render tools (e.g., pcb_render_net, pcb_render_stackup). The description implies use for board-level rendering but offers no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context such as session prerequisites.

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