export_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait – that the board is saved before export (default true) – via the save_first argument, but it says nothing about overwriting an existing PDF, what the plot contains, or whether this requires a loaded document.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is terse, with no filler. The key action and scope are readable at a glance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three inputs are covered. For a simple one-shot export tool the picture is nearly complete; only when-to-use routing and overwrite behavior are missing.

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, and it does document all three parameters: output_path as the destination .pdf, layers as a comma-separated list, and save_first as a pre-export save. It omits the schema defaults (F.Cu,B.Cu,Edge.Cuts and true), which would be useful for an agent choosing whether to pass layers at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Export a PDF plot of selected PCB layers'), and the PDF format implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like export_gerbers, export_svg, and export_step. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over the other export_* siblings or when it is unnecessary. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose sentence.

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