Export Odb

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads the last SAVED state of the .kicad_pcb, implying unsaved changes are ignored. It also notes the output is a single job archive, providing content insight beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three focused sentences: first states the action and method, second provides the archive contents and use case, third notes the saved-state behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's purpose, key behavioral limitation (saved state only), and typical use cases. An output schema exists (per context signals), and annotations cover destructive behavior, so the description does not need to explain return values. A small gap remains in not mentioning how parameters like compression affect the output, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a 7-param 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 7 parameters. The description adds some context about output contents but does not explain parameter semantics (e.g., units, precision, compression). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 exports the PCB in ODB++ format via kicad-cli, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling export tools by naming the specific format and listing the archive contents (copper, drill, placement, components, nets, outline), which is unique among the siblings.

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 indicates the tool is appropriate for CAM/MES/assembly workflows, providing a clear use case context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative export formats, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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