Export Bom

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint is true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds context that this tool exports BOM data in multiple formats from the PCB, but does not detail side effects such as file overwriting or any preconditions. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and format options without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 essential purpose, source (PCB), and output formats. With the output schema available and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple export tool. However, it lacks explicit usage differentiation from similar export tools, which prevents a higher score.

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 100% per context, with each parameter (format, outputPath, groupByValue, includeAttributes) having descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles this.

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 uses the specific verb 'export' with a clear resource 'Bill of Materials (BOM) from the PCB' and lists supported formats (CSV, XML, HTML, JSON). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_sch_bom which target schematics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using export_sch_bom for schematic BOMs or export_netlist for netlists. It simply states what it does without contextual placement.

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