Export Sch Hpgl

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that output is one plot per page into a directory, which explains the file-creation behavior. However, it does not clarify whether existing files in the output directory are overwritten or other side effects, leaving the destructive nature under-explained.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and output behavior, the second lists the parameter groups and the required input. It is front-loaded, uses no filler, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter categories, but it omits practical details like whether outputDir is required (schema lists it as required, but description only highlights schematicPath) and potential file-overwrite behavior. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet side-effect caveats are missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concise summary of exposed options (drawing-sheet override, page selection, pen size, origin/scale mode) and flags schematicPath as required, which helps confirm which parameters are available without reading each schema description. It does not go into deep parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the enumeration adds value.

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 HPGL via kicad-cli (`sch export hpgl`)' with the output format and structure ('one plot per page into a directory'). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_sch_pdf or export_sch_svg by naming the specific format and command.

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?

Provides strong context by tying the operation to kicad-cli and noting schematicPath is required, but does not explicitly state when to choose HPGL over other export formats or any preconditions/limitations. The absence of direct alternative comparison lowers the score.

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