snapshot_board

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

With no annotations the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the exact rendering conventions (front copper red, back blue, courtyards grey/purple, airwires yellow) and an operational caveat ('refill_zones first if they are stale'). It never explicitly states the operation is read-only/non-mutating, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose, then the colour legend, then a clean Args section. The legend is detailed but each line earns its place by enabling interpretation of the returned image.

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, so the description correctly explains the return (a PNG and how to read its colours) and documents all params. It omits whether the operation mutates state and how the image is delivered (path vs bytes), which would complete a 6-param, no-annotation tool.

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 does fully: it documents all six params, including the valid values for 'side' ('both','front','back') that the schema leaves as a plain string, an example for ratsnest_exclude_nets (['GND']), the meaning of highlight_net (green), and the aspect-ratio behavior of width_px.

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 and resource – 'Return a PNG picture of the open board (top view)' – and names the intent (check placement and routing visually). This is enough to distinguish it from visual/export siblings like render_3d, export_svg, or export_pdf without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('to check placement and routing visually') but names no alternatives or when-not conditions; it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over render_3d or an SVG export. Adequate context, no exclusions.

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