Export 3d Cli

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

Beyond the annotation destructiveHint=true, the description discloses that the tool reads the last SAVED state of the PCB (not unsaved changes) and that only flags valid for the selected subcommand are forwarded. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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 description is dense but well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a comprehensive but readable explanation of flag groups, a sibling context sentence, and a crucial state-read caveat. Every sentence provides value without repetition or fluff.

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?

For a tool with 30 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: how format dispatches, which parameters apply to which formats, the CLI relationship, and the saved-state caveat. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the description gives enough guidance for reliable use.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description greatly enhances parameter understanding by grouping shared flags and identifying format-specific parameters (e.g., no-optimize-step is STEP-only, vrml uses units/models-dir). This interdependency information is absent from the schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Export a 3D model of the PCB via kicad-cli.' It differentiates the tool from siblings by explicitly calling itself a 'Rich CLI sibling of export_3d and export_vrml' and immediately explains the format-based subcommand selection, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 strong practical guidance on how to use the format parameter and which flags are valid per subcommand, including the split between the shared geometry flag set and VRML-specific flags. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over export_3d or export_vrml beyond calling it 'rich' and 'CLI' – the comparative usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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