pcb_export_glb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Export a GLB 3D model' without detailing side effects, file creation, overwrite behavior, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and does not inform the agent about operational consequences.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is appropriately brief for a simple export tool, though its brevity borders on under-specification. No unnecessary words are present.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. The presence of an output schema helps but is not referenced, and the agent still lacks key information 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?

The input schema has two parameters but describes none (0% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning to 'board' or 'out_file'. There is no explanation of what these parameters represent, their formats, or relationships, leaving the agent to guess despite the parameter names.

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 action (export) and the resource (GLB 3D model), with the format distinguishing it from sibling export tools like pcb_export_step and pcb_export_gerbers. However, it does not explicitly mention the board context, relying on the tool name to imply it, so it lacks full explicit scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as STEP or Gerber export. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or when to avoid this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from context.

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