Export Ipcd356

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: that it 'Reads the last SAVED state of the .kicad_pcb,' informing the user that unsaved changes are not included, and notes the generation is via kicad-cli. It does not detail what gets destroyed, but the annotation already signals destructiveness.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, the second gives consumers, the third warns about saved-state dependence. 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?

Given the schema covers parameters and the output schema presumably documents return values, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, source, and intended consumers. It doesn't mention prerequisites like board must be saved, but the saved-state note implies it. It could mention when to prefer other formats, but that's a guidelines issue. Overall sufficient.

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%: both boardPath (default current board) and outputPath (output .ipc/netlist file path) are documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so a 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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' with a specific resource 'IPC-D-356 bare-board electrical-test netlist' and names the tool 'kicad-cli'. It distinguishes from sibling export tools like export_netlist or export_ipc2581 by specifying the format and test-consumer context.

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?

It states the output is 'Consumed by flying-probe and bed-of-nails testers,' giving clear context for when this export is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use export_ipc2581 instead), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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