export_pcb_pdf

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not explain what destructive effects might occur (e.g., overwriting files) or any other behavioral traits such as whether a file is saved to disk, which layers are included by default, or whether a dialog is opened. It adds no context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential context about parameters and usage, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 large number of sibling export tools and the presence of an optional 'layers' parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not disambiguate the PDF type (2D vs 3D) or clarify the behavior of the layers parameter, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The 'layers' parameter is not explained in the description at all, and its meaning cannot be inferred from the description text. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states the action ('Export') and the resource ('PCB') and target format ('PDF'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling export tools like export_sch_pdf or pcb_export_3d_pdf, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative export tools (e.g., export_3d_pdf, export_svg). The description is purely a statement of function, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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