Export PCB 3D mechanical CAD model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what geometry is included (board plus component bodies), but says nothing about the fact that a file is written to disk, what happens if destinationPath is omitted, or how timeoutMs affects the operation. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint since the board design itself is not mutated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb, the resource and the formats first, then the purpose clauses. Slightly dense with the parenthetical format list, but no filler sentences.

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?

Eight optional parameters and no output schema mean the description must carry the return contract, and it does not: nothing says whether a file path, a job handle, or raw data comes back, nor where the file lands without destinationPath. For an export tool the agent cannot predict the result of the call from this definition.

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 88%, so the schema already documents format, quality, fileName, destinationPath, includeCopper, includeSilkscreen and includeComponents3D; the description only restates the format list. The single undocumented parameter, timeoutMs, is not explained in the description either, so no real meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Exports 3D mechanical CAD geometry ... of the board and mounted component bodies') and enumerates the four output formats, so the agent can tell this apart from export_dxf, export_gerber, export_pdf and get_pcb_3d_view. It does not name a sibling explicitly as the alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three intended uses are named (MCAD integration, 3D printing, thermal/clearance analysis), which implies when to reach for this tool. There is no guidance on when not to use it, no mention of the related 3D inspection/view siblings, and no prerequisites such as requiring an open PCB document.

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