Export Sch Ps

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it uses kicad-cli, outputs one PS per page into a directory, and exposes several options. Since destructiveHint is true, the agent knows it writes files, but the description does not mention whether outputDir must exist or if overwriting occurs. Still, the added context is valuable and consistent 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 compact and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then summarize options and highlight the required parameter. Every phrase adds relevant information without unnecessary fluff.

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 (10 parameters), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: format, output structure (one PS per page), implementation, and key options. It doesn't cover return values, but the output schema fills that gap. A small note on outputDir behavior (e.g., whether it is created) would push it to 5.

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 parameters. The description summarizes key options (drawing-sheet, theme, black-and-white, etc.) but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. It reinforces that schematicPath is required, but that is already in the schema as a required field.

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 specific action: 'Export a schematic to PostScript via kicad-cli (`sch export ps`)' and includes the output behavior 'one PS per page into a directory'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling export tools (e.g., export_sch_pdf, export_sch_svg) by format and page-per-file behavior.

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 purpose implies when to use: when PostScript output is needed. It also lists key options (drawing-sheet override, theme, etc.) which helps the agent decide if this tool matches the need. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops 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.