pcb_export_3d

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is base64 encoded and requires an active PCB document. However, it does not mention if the operation is destructive, permission needs, or side effects. For an export tool, non-destructive is likely, but the lack of explicit safety characteristics is a gap.

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 short, but it is under-specified given the 5 undocumented parameters. It front-loads the purpose but fails to add value for parameter understanding. The brevity is not a strength when it omits essential usage details.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter purposes, valid values, or defaults. The mention of base64 return is helpful, but insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 lists 5 parameters (element, fileName, fileType, modelMode, autoGenerateModels) with zero description coverage. The tool description provides no explanation of what these parameters do, leaving the AI agent to guess their semantics and valid values. This is a critical failure for correct invocation.

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), resource (3D model of PCB), and specifics (e.g. STEP format, base64 return, requirement for active PCB document). It effectively distinguishes this from other export tools like pcb_export_gerber or pcb_export_pdf among siblings.

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 context by stating 'Requires a PCB document active,' which implies when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the mention of '3D model' and the sibling list (including other export tools) gives enough differentiation for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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