add_board_text

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects, permissions, or constraints (e.g., layer validation, text rendering behavior). This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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 short (one sentence), which aids conciseness but lacks structural elements like headers or bullet points. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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 6 parameters (3 required) and an output schema (not provided), the description fails to cover important context like expected units, layer naming conventions, or return value purpose. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to make safe calls.

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 additional meaning to the parameters beyond their names. For example, it does not explain units for x, y, and size (mm vs mils) or valid layer values. The brief mention of 'silkscreen or copper' hints at layer, but is vague.

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 adds text to a PCB board, specifying 'silkscreen or copper', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_board_outline or add_copper_pour.

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 usage guidelines provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_board_text, modify text, or other text tools). No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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