Export Pcb Dxf

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it reads the last SAVED state, warning that unsaved changes are not included. This is a meaningful disclosure not present in the 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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists option groups. Every listed item maps to schema parameters without filler. It's slightly run-on but efficient and appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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?

With 20 parameters, an output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description provides a high-level overview of the option set and the saved-state behavior. It doesn't explain return values (output schema covers that) or prerequisites like an open board, but the phrase 'PCB layout' and the saved-state note together offer sufficient context for this complex exporter.

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 each parameter is individually described. The description adds semantic grouping and synonyms (e.g., 'refdes/value exclusion' for excludeRefdes/excludeValue, 'single/multi output modes' for modeSingle/modeMulti), helping the agent map high-level intent to the specific parameter names.

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 and resource: 'Plot the PCB layout to DXF via kicad-cli'. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_gerber, export_pdf, export_svg, and export_sch_dxf, making it unambiguous.

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 tool's use case is implied by its name and description as the PCB DXF exporter. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the caveat 'Reads the last SAVED state' gives an important usage condition—ensure the board is saved before exporting. No formal exclusions are stated, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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