add_board_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states what it does, not behavioral traits like whether it is destructive, if it overwrites existing outlines, or if it requires a specific active layer. Minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it fails to provide necessary details. It is efficient but underspecified, leading to a score that balances conciseness with insufficient information.

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 lack of annotations and param descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. The description only covers the basic action, omitting return value details (though output schema exists), behavioral notes, and parameter semantics. It would require the agent to have prior knowledge.

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 adds no meaning to parameters. It does not explain the format of 'points' (e.g., array of coordinates) or the unit of 'width'. The agent cannot infer how to structure inputs from the description alone.

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 it adds board outline segments on the Edge.Cuts layer, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_board_text or add_mounting_hole through the target layer and function.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like add_copper_pour or routing tools.

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