Make PCB Layout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool does not change the PCB and that it returns PNG/SVG preview paths, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential asynchronous behavior (indicated by wait_ms parameter) or any side effects beyond what is stated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. The pointer to instructions.md is a useful addition without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 gives the core purpose and points to a detailed instructions file, which adds context. However, it omits the asynchronous workflow implied by sibling tools (wait_pcb_layout, cancel_pcb_layout) and the wait_ms parameter. No output schema exists, so the description could do more to explain the overall process.

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 67%, with clear descriptions for the two required parameters (file and path). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the key inputs. The wait_ms parameter lacks a description but is self-explanatory with its name and constraints.

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 creates a PCB placement without modifying the actual board and returns PNG/SVG preview paths. This distinguishes it from siblings like assemble_pcb_layout or auto_route_pcb by emphasizing the non-destructive preview nature.

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 compared to alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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