export_schematic

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

The description explains format-specific output behavior: single vs multiple files, path semantics, and filled fields (size_bytes, files, count). It also clarifies optional parameters and defaults. This adds context beyond the 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by format-specific behavioral notes, and an Args section. It is somewhat verbose but all content is relevant to invoking the tool correctly.

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 description covers the core behaviors and parameter semantics, and the presence of an output schema likely documents return values. It misses potential error scenarios and prerequisites, but for an export tool this is adequate.

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 parameters have no descriptions (0% coverage), so this description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of each parameter: format enum values, optional schematic_path and output_dir with defaults. It also explains the impact of format on output structure.

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 'Export schematic to PDF, SVG, or DXF format' with a specific verb, resource, and output formats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_netlist, export_pcb, and export_gerbers.

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?

It provides clear context for use, mentioning that pdf/dxf produce a single file while svg produces one per sheet, which helps the agent set expectations. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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