Export Dsn

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent is aware of mutation risk. The description adds the format and use case but does not disclose side effects like overwriting an existing output file. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 short sentences: the first states the action, the second provides usage context. There is no redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple export tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. The annotations handle safety, and the schema handles parameter details, so no additional context is necessary.

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%, with both boardPath and outputPath documented. The description mentions 'current PCB' which aligns with boardPath's default, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Export the current PCB to Specctra DSN format,' which clearly specifies the action (export), the resource (current PCB), and the output format (Specctra DSN). It distinguishes itself from sibling export tools by naming the specific format and invoking the Freerouting workflow.

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 phrase 'Useful for manual Freerouting workflow or external autorouters' provides a clear when-to-use context, differentiating it from other export formats. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is specific enough.

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