Import Pcb

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

Despite the annotations providing destructiveHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies the conversion mechanism (kicad-cli native importer), the need for format 'auto' for binary Allegro .brd files, and the scope limitation to PCB/layout data only. It does not detail overwrite behavior, but since annotations already cover destructiveness, the bar is lower and the added context is valuable.

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 front-loaded, with the primary action and supported formats in the first sentence. The following sentences add essential caveats (Allegro format handling and scope limitation) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 4 parameters, enums, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, supported formats, a special case, and a scope limitation. It relies on the schema and annotations for details like output defaults, report format, and destructiveness, which is acceptable. Minor gaps include not mentioning potential side effects beyond the annotation, but overall it is complete enough for the complexity.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including the special Allegro note. The description reinforces some of this (e.g., the Allegro 'auto' requirement and .kicad_pcb output) but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema's existing rich documentation. 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 clearly states the tool's function: importing a vendor PCB file and converting it to a KiCad .kicad_pcb file via kicad-cli's native importer. It enumerates specific supported formats and explicitly distinguishes itself from schematic import by stating it only handles PCB/layout data, which differentiates it from sibling tools like import_eagle_project or schematic importers.

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 the tool (importing vendor PCB layout files) and explicitly states a key exclusion: it does not import schematics. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for schematic imports, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives.

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