export_pcb_review_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output is a self-contained HTML artifact containing geometry and verification evidence, but it doesn't say where the file is written, whether an existing report is overwritten, or what happens on a revision with unresolved verification failures.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the artifact type. Nothing is wasted and no filler precedes the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly names the output format. However, for a generative tool with two undocumented required parameters and no prerequisites stated, it leaves gaps an agent must guess at before invoking.

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 0% and the description never mentions 'project' or 'revision' at all — no format, no naming convention, no indication of whether revision accepts a label, hash, or id. With two required undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and artifact: 'Generate a self-contained HTML review' and adds the material it embeds ('actual board geometry and verification evidence'). That distinguishes it from nearby siblings like build_pcb_manufacturing_release and verify_pcb_release_archive, though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether the project must already be inspected/verified, whether a release must exist first, or how this differs from build_pcb_manufacturing_release or accept an archive. The agent must infer the trigger conditions from the surrounding tool set.

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