Import Eagle Project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds conversion details (kicad-cli, Eagle XML to S-expression) that explain the process. However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting files, source file handling, or any preconditions like requiring kicad-cli to be installed, so it adds limited behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and provides a brief but useful technical overview. Every sentence contributes value without wasteful elaboration.

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?

With an output schema present and rich input schema, the description covers the essential conversion steps and file types. It lacks explicit prerequisites or side-effect warnings, but for a moderately complex import tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 all four parameters (board_file, output_dir, project_name, schematic_file) are already described. The description mentions .brd and .sch but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's function: importing Eagle .brd + .sch files and converting them to KiCad. It uses specific verbs ('Import', 'convert'), names the resource (Eagle project), and specifies the output (KiCad project), distinguishing it from generic importers like 'import_pcb'.

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 implies the tool is for Eagle-to-KiCad conversion, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'import_pcb' or 'create_project'). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage context implicit.

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