export_positions

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the context that it exports a pick-and-place file, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose details like overwrite behavior, output file naming, or side effects beyond creating the file. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 extremely concise: one purpose line plus a two-item Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters), existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose and parameter semantics. Minor gaps include lack of emphasis on whether the output directory must exist, but this does not significantly hinder selection or invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains both parameters: pcb_path (path to .kicad_pcb file, optional with default) and output_dir (output directory, optional with default). This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the exact default values.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('component position file') with a clarifying parenthetical ('pick and place'), which distinguishes it from other export tools like export_schematic or export_bom. This makes the purpose immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 usage by clearly stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. In a list with many other export tools, there's no explicit differentiation beyond the purpose statement.

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