export_svg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the save_first side effect (board is saved before exporting) and that output goes to a file, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether directories are created, required permissions, or error conditions for an invalid path.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first line, followed by a compact per-parameter list. Efficient with little waste, though the Args block largely restates parameter names already visible in the schema.

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 explained. All three parameters are addressed and the save-first behavior is noted, making it adequate for invoking the tool; only format-selection reasoning relative to sibling exporters is 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 documents all three parameters: output_path as a destination .svg file, layers as comma-separated layers, and save_first as saving the board first. It omits the default layer set (F.Cu,B.Cu,Edge.Cuts) and the save_first default of true, which schema provides separately.

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 (Export) and resource (SVG plot of selected PCB layers), which is clear and distinct from sibling exporters like export_pdf and export_gerbers. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent how it differs from those format alternatives, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 export_svg over export_pdf, export_gerbers, or render_3d, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a board must be open). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the word 'selected'.

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