Export Sch Bom

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the mechanism 'via kicad-cli' and the specific subcommand, which signals an external tool invocation. It also mentions 'exposing the full option set', giving insight into the tool's breadth. The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags potential destructive behavior, but the description does not detail what may be overwritten (e.g., the output file). Thus it provides some but not full transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second highlights the required parameter. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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's complexity (18 parameters), the presence of an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description provides an adequate high-level overview. It captures the core purpose and parameter categories, while the schema and annotations fill in the technical details. It does not explain return values because an output schema exists, and it avoids redundant repetition.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description enhances understanding by grouping parameters into categories: 'presets, field/label lists, grouping, sorting, filtering, DNP/excluded-from-BOM handling, and field/string/ref delimiters'. It also emphasizes `schematicPath` as required, which is a key usage point. This adds meaningful semantic organization beyond the individual field descriptions.

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' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a Bill of Materials from a schematic'. It also mentions the underlying CLI command (`sch export bom`), which gives precise scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `export_bom` or `export_netlist` by explicitly targeting schematic BOM export.

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 clearly states the context for use: 'Generate a Bill of Materials from a schematic', which tells the agent when to choose this tool. It also notes that `schematicPath` is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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