Export Ipc2581

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds an important behavioral trait: 'Reads the last SAVED state of the .kicad_pcb.' This warns that unsaved changes are not included, which annotations do not cover. The description does not contradict any 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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and format; the second provides BOM parameter context and the saved-state caveat. There is no filler or redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 has 13 parameters, a required outputPath, complete schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: purpose, format content, BOM mapping rationale, and the saved-state behavior. It does not need to list all parameters because the schema documents them precisely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by grouping the bomCol* parameters: 'The bomCol* params map schematic fields to the embedded BOM columns (e.g. internal P/N, manufacturer P/N).' This provides combined context beyond each individual schema description, such as recognizing that bomColMfg and bomColMfgPn belong to a related set.

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 the action explicitly: 'Export the PCB in IPC-2581 format via kicad-cli.' It further clarifies the output is a single-file MES/CAD interchange carrying placement, nets, and BOM data inline, which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_gerber or export_bom. This is a specific verb+resource+format statement.

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 the tool is intended for assembly/MES imports by saying 'useful for assembly/MES imports.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool compared to other export options. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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