Export Drill

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds useful context about reading the last saved state rather than in-memory changes, but it does not clarify what specifically might be overwritten or other side effects beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear list of supported options. The caveat about saved state is a necessary addition and is stated concisely. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's 13 parameters and complexity, the description covers the key aspects: it names the output format, the source file requirement, and the major option groups. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It does not mention prerequisites like having the board open, but the 'current board' default in the schema partially addresses that.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's summary of option families (format, origin, zero suppression, etc.) adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, but it does group related parameters helpfully.

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 ('Generate drill files') and resource ('for a PCB via kicad-cli'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling export tools like export_gerber. It enumerates the full option set, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies the tool is for generating drill files, which is distinct from other exports. It adds a prerequisite ('Reads the last SAVED state of the .kicad_pcb'), signaling when it should be used (after saving). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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