Export Sch Python Bom

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint true), the description adds useful behavioral context: it invokes kicad-cli with a specific subcommand, has a minimal option set, and requires a schematic path. This goes beyond what the annotations already provide, although it does not detail side effects like file overwriting, which is acceptable given the annotation already flags destructiveness.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains why the output is used, and the third notes parameter constraints. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter CLI wrapper, the description is complete: it specifies the exact command, the legacy nature, the output consumer, and the required input. With an output schema present, return-value details are not needed, and the tool's scope is fully covered by the description plus structured annotations.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions ('Output XML file path', 'Path to the .kicad_sch (required)'). The description adds only 'schematicPath is REQUIRED' and 'output + input only', which reinforces existing schema info but doesn't enrich parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Export the legacy Python-BOM intermediate XML from a schematic via kicad-cli (`sch export python-bom`)'. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and purpose, and the mention of 'legacy' and 'Python-BOM' distinguishes it from general BOM/netlist exports like export_bom or export_netlist.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is the XML netlist consumed by the schematic editor's Python BOM scripts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the legacy-specific wording implies a niche use case, which is adequate guidance for an agent.

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