kicad.export_bom

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the project requirement, but omits critical behavioral details: output file format, whether it overwrites existing files, and side effects. Output schema exists per context signals, so return values need not be described.

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?

Extremely concise two-phrase structure. Front-loads the critical prerequisite constraint. No redundant or wasted text; every element serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Minimum viable for a single-parameter export tool. Adequately covers core function and prerequisites, but significant gap remains regarding the undocumented parameter (given 0% schema coverage) and export format specifics. Output schema existence mitigates need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 0% (no description field for output_path parameter). Description fails to compensate by not mentioning the parameter at all. While 'output_path' is somewhat self-explanatory, missing semantics include: whether it accepts relative/absolute paths, required file extension, or directory vs. file path.

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?

Clear verb ('Export') + resource ('Bill of Materials') + source ('from the schematic'). Effectively distinguishes from sibling export tools (export_gerbers, export_netlist, export_pdf) by specifying BOM content. Minor gap: doesn't specify output format (CSV, XML, etc.).

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite '[Requires open project]' which is valuable context. However, lacks guidance on when to use this vs. export_netlist or export_gerbers, or whether BOM should be generated before/after other operations.

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