sch_render

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond that: it writes files to disk, produces one artifact per sheet in SVG mode, and returns paths for the client to read. It does not say what happens to pre-existing files in the output directory, which is the one notable gap for a writing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries purpose, mechanism, output shape, and return value with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still explains that paths are returned for display. Combined with the two schema-documented parameters, the definition is nearly complete; only overwrite/cleanup behavior for the output directory is unstated.

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 67%, with schematic_path and output_dir already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning to the format enum by explaining that svg yields one file per sheet while pdf yields a single multi-page file, which an agent cannot infer from the enum values alone.

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?

States a specific verb (render/draw), resource (every sheet of the schematic), the two output formats, the underlying engine (kicad-cli), and the return payload (file paths). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling render_board tool, which handles the PCB side.

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 choice between svg and pdf is implied ('one file per sheet' vs 'one multi-page PDF'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions (e.g. project must be opened), and no named alternative tool for other render targets. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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