Export Gerbers

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the tool reads the board from disk and thus reflects the last saved state, which is a critical behavioral nuance. It also conveys that it invokes kicad-cli and exposes a wide set of options, but doesn't detail overwrite behavior or error conditions.

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, wastes no words, and front-loads the core action ('Plot Gerber files for a PCB via kicad-cli'). The parenthetical enumeration is compact, and the caveat about saved state is placed efficiently.

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 high parameter count (21) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, mechanism (kicad-cli), full option set, and the important 'reads from disk' caveat. It does not list every parameter or when to override boardPath, but the schema and output schema fill those gaps. It is complete enough for an export tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all 21 parameters clearly. The description groups many options in parentheses (X2, netlist attributes, DNP handling, etc.), which adds a high-level semantic grouping but provides no additional detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool plots Gerber files for a PCB via kicad-cli, with a specific verb ('Plot') and resource ('PCBs'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like export_gerber_single by emphasizing the full Plot-dialog option set and the fact it reads the last saved board state.

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 implies when to use this tool (when full Plot-dialog options are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like export_gerber or export_gerber_single. The note about reading from disk hints at a caveat but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion.

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