export_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the action but does not mention any side effects, output format intricacies, or potential restrictions. For a tool with 3 parameters, more detail is needed.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. For a tool with multiple parameters and no schema descriptions, it should at least list or hint at the parameters. It is not optimally structured.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the output will be, or any side effects. The agent lacks the necessary context to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, meaning no parameter has any descriptive text in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or their roles (output_path, layers, single_document). The agent must infer their meanings from names alone, 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 that the tool exports the board to a PDF document. It uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('board to PDF'). Among the many sibling tools like export_gerbers, export_svg, etc., this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other export tools (e.g., export_gerbers, export_svg, export_3d). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned. The agent has no context to decide if export_pdf is appropriate.

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