render_layers

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns SVG paths, produces a PNG path on macOS, and explains mirror semantics for bottom-layer viewing. It does not disclose every detail, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is a solid 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose and layer-example are front-loaded, and the return format and mirror hint are appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Although the output schema reduces the need to explain return values, path and output remain undefined. An agent cannot reliably know whether path refers to the board file or an output location, or how output relates to the returned SVG/PNG paths. For a tool with four optional parameters rough language model-assisted invocation, this is a meaningful gap.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It explains layers via comma-separated examples and gives the mirror=true usage, but it completely omits what path and output mean. Since two of four parameters are undocumented both in the schema and description, the description only partially compensates.

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 identifies the tool as a 2D plot of specified layers fitted to the board, with concrete examples of layer names. The '2D' qualifier helps distinguish it from sibling render_3d, and the verb 'plot' plus resource 'layers' makes the purpose explicit.

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 implies use for 2D board-layer visualization and mentions mirror=true for bottom-side viewing, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over render_3d or other siblings. It provides clear context but no direct exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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