pcb_get_board_as_string

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds the output format ('bounded S-expression string') and the notion of 'current board' state, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output size limits or potential errors. It does not contradict 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 has no parameters, safe annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. However, 'bounded' is ambiguous and could benefit from clarification (e.g., what bounds the S-expression), and there is no guidance on when this representation is preferable to other board accessors. Still, for a simple getter, the essential information is provided.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description needs no parameter documentation. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides sufficient context about the return value, though it does not elaborate on the 'bounded' qualifier.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the current board as a bounded S-expression string, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current board'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_nets or pcb_get_board_summary.

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 implies when to use it (when you need the board as a serialized string) but does not provide explicit comparison to alternatives or mention when not to use it. There is no exclusion guidance, but for a simple getter, the intended usage is reasonably inferable.

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