Export Sch Dxf

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by mentioning that the result is one DXF file per page written to a directory, and it enumerates the exposed options. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or directory creation, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the exposed options. Every word contributes meaning, 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 is comprehensive for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it states the output form, lists key options, flags the required schematicPath, and mentions the CLI integration. The schema and output schema cover the remaining parameter and return details. A minor gap is that outputDir is also required but not highlighted, though it is visible in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists several parameter groups (drawing-sheet override, theme, black-and-white, etc.) that map to schema properties, but it does not add format, default, or usage details beyond what the schema already provides. It highlights schematicPath as REQUIRED but omits outputDir from the summary.

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 ('Export a schematic to DXF'), the target resource, and even the underlying command (`kicad-cli sch export dxf`). It also specifies the multi-page output behavior ('one DXF per page into a directory'), which distinguishes it from sibling schematic export tools like export_sch_pdf or export_sch_svg.

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 usage is implied by the format (DXF) and command reference, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as export_pcb_dxf or export_sch_pdf. It does not state any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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