Wait PCB Layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions waiting and returning preview paths, but fails to disclose critical traits such as the wait_ms timeout, blocking behavior, or error handling for invalid/expired operation IDs. It also doesn't clarify whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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, focused sentence with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the action (wait) and concisely states the output (PNG/SVG preview paths).

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide more context to be complete. It omits crucial details like timeout behavior, error conditions, and how parameters influence execution. For a tool that blocks for a significant time (up to 180 seconds), this minimal description is insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 zero description coverage for its two parameters (operation_id and wait_ms). The description does not explain that operation_id identifies the make_pcb_layout operation to wait for, nor does it mention that wait_ms controls the maximum wait time. The only indirect reference is to the operation itself, which is insufficient.

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 waits for an active 'make_pcb_layout' operation and returns PNG/SVG preview paths. It uses a specific verb (wait) and resource (make_pcb_layout operation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wait_auto_route and cancel_pcb_layout.

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 it is used after initiating a make_pcb_layout operation (by referencing an 'active' operation), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the waiting companion to make_pcb_layout, which is not clearly stated.

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