export_svg

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

Annotations already provide openWorldHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, file output locations, or what 'supported' entails, leaving the vague conditional as the only extra information.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and immediately communicates the core operation.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a one-parameter export tool, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, it lacks details about supported layer types, output destination, and the conditions under which SVG export is available, leaving significant operational ambiguity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole 'layer' parameter, and the description does not explain it beyond implying a board layer. It fails to clarify possible values, layer naming conventions, or the meaning of the default 'F.Cu'.

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 tool exports a board layer to SVG. The verb 'export' plus the resource 'board layer to SVG' precisely defines the action, and it is readily distinguishable from sibling export tools by the SVG format.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other export tools, nor does it specify exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only qualifier is 'when supported,' which lacks concrete criteria.

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