export_bom

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it writes CSV and uses configured defaults, but it does not disclose details like output file naming, overwrite behavior, or behavior when the schematic path is invalid. It provides moderate value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise Args block. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of obvious schema details.

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, idempotent export tool with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and defaults. It does not explain generated file naming or invalid-input behavior, but those are not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully documents both parameters: schematic_path points to a .kicad_sch file, output_dir specifies the output location, and both are optional with configured fallback defaults. The description fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Export Bill of Materials (BOM) as CSV.' This clearly identifies the tool's output format and distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_netlist, export_schematic, or export_pcb in the same family.

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 intended use—when a CSV BOM is needed—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. With many export-related sibling tools, some explicit differentiation would improve guidance.

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