export_assembly_drawing_svg

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds detail about rendered content (polarity marks, mirrored view, title block) but says nothing about behavior beyond output content—no error handling, determinism, or size/complexity limits.

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 dense sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is long but every clause enumerates real output features rather than restating the name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates what the SVG contains (outlines, refDes, polarity marks, title block). Combined with 100% schema coverage on the six parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the modules dependency and failure behavior are left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes a few parameters (mirrored bottom view, revision/title block) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (scaled PCBA assembly drawing SVG), plus the governing standards ASME Y14.5 / IPC-2221B Sec 11. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling exporters like export_gerber_bundle, export_ipc2581, or export_kicad_schematic, which produce entirely different artifacts.

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?

Usage is implied by the artifact type (you call this when you need an assembly drawing SVG), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative. The dependency on synthesize_circuit output appears only in the schema, not the description.

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