Export Gencad

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by noting that the tool reads the saved state rather than current unsaved changes, and highlights specific options that modify output. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation, though it could further explain file-overwrite behavior.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds useful information: format and method, use case, supported options, and the saved-state behavior. No wasted words.

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 main purpose, use case, options, and a critical behavioral caveat (saved state), which is strong for a tool of this complexity. It does not explicitly state prerequisites like saving the board, but that is implied and the output schema is provided separately.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces meaning by naming the option groups (padstack flip, unique pin/footprint, origin options), which helps the agent connect parameters to high-level behavior without repeating the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Export the PCB in GenCAD format via kicad-cli'), identifies the resource and format, and adds context as an 'Assembly/test interchange format'. It distinguishes from sibling export tools by the specific target format.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Assembly/test interchange format') and a key behavioral constraint ('Reads the last SAVED state'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is not fully explicit.

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