pcb_export_coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does most of it: the Returns block disambiguates the ambiguous 'export' verb by making clear the tool returns a dictionary rather than writing a file, and enumerates the exact payload. It does not state prerequisites (an open PCB document) or confirm read-only/no-mutation explicitly, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the sibling differentiation, which is the highest-value information. However, the per-field list (designator, footprint, comment, x, y, rotation, layer, side) is stated twice — once in prose and again in the Returns block — and duplicated a third time by the output schema, so a sentence does not fully earn its place.

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?

A zero-parameter, read-only export tool is simple, and an output schema already exists so return values need not be explained in prose. The description covers purpose, contrast, and payload; only the missing note about document prerequisites and the no-file-written guarantee keeps it from being fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly adds no speculative parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (export component placement coordinates) and immediately names the sibling it contrasts with (pcb_get_components), explaining the exact delta: adds side, omits bbox detail. An agent can distinguish it from pcb_get_components and pcb_get_selected_objects without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case (manufacturing pick-and-place machine programming) and implicitly routes away from pcb_get_components by naming it as the alternative shape. It lacks explicit exclusions such as 'do not use for BOM or assembly drawing output' (proj_get_bom, proj_export_pdf exist as siblings), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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