pcb_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (PNG), the default layer set, the coordinate unit (mm), and the overlay behavior of boxing silkscreen findings. It does not define 'findings' further, but enough behavior is disclosed for a render tool.

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 compact sentences pack the core purpose, layer scope, output details, and parameter usage without wasted words. The phrase 'as an image' is mildly redundant after 'PNG', but overall the description is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main rendering behavior and parameter syntax, but there is no output schema and no guidance about the required 'board' parameter, layer list formatting, or relationships/conflicts between 'around' and 'region'. A capable agent could infer a basic call, but important invocation details remain 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'around' and 'region' with units and format, but the required 'board' parameter is completely undocumented, and 'layers' only benefits from the schema default. The compensation is partial.

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 produces a PNG image of a board region and lists the relevant layers (F.Cu, silkscreen, courtyards, edge). It is distinct from the schematic sibling by explicitly saying 'board region', so an agent can tell pcb_render apart from sch_render.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: use 'around' with references or 'region' with coordinate bounds in mm. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the PCB/board context and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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