pcb_export_layers

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation (export SVGs, return paths) and default fit. It does not disclose error handling, prerequisites, side effects (e.g., file creation/deletion), or performance considerations, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action and return. It efficiently communicates the core functionality, but lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections that could improve readability for complex parameters.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should comprehensively cover return values and behavioral details. It states file paths are returned but does not specify format, persistence, or what happens with the temp directory. Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params), the description is incomplete.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It does clarify the default for 'fit' and the cropping context, which is useful but not extensive. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 one SVG per PCB layer and returns file paths. It provides an example of layers (F.Cu, B.Cu, Edge.Cuts) and notes the default board-area fit, making the specific verb+resource purpose distinct from sibling tools like pcb_render or pcb_crop.

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 mentions a default fit option for downstream cropping, implying a common use case, but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_render or pcb_crop. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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