Import Ses

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal extra context, only mentioning importing into the current PCB. It does not disclose effects like overwriting existing routing or requiring a valid SES file, but with annotations covering the main risk, a middle score is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage context.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose and usage. The main missing piece is the effect on existing routing (e.g., replacement), but given the annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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%, with both sesPath and boardPath having descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Import a Specctra SES (session) file into the current PCB.' It uses a specific verb ('import') and resource ('Specctra SES file'), and the mention of Freerouting distinguishes it from other import tools like import_pcb or import_eagle_project.

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 phrase 'Use after running Freerouting externally' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to guide an agent to this tool for SES files from Freerouting.

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