kicad.export_netlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully communicates the project state requirement and workflow context, but fails to disclose safety characteristics (e.g., whether it overwrites existing files at output_path) or side effects on the application state.

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 with zero waste. The bracketed prerequisite is front-loaded, followed by the core action and workflow context. Every word earns its place across the two sentences.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with an output schema (relieving the need to describe return values). However, given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description should have included parameter details and file behavior to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (output_path has no description field). The description compensates poorly, never mentioning the parameter explicitly or clarifying path requirements (absolute vs. relative), expected file extensions, or overwrite behavior. The connection between 'Export' and 'output_path' is implicit only.

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 clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('netlist') with source context ('from the schematic'). It distinguishes from sibling export tools (export_bom, export_gerbers, etc.) by specifying the netlist format, though it could further clarify the file format (e.g., .net or .csv).

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?

Excellent prerequisite flag ('[Requires open project]') and explicit workflow guidance ('Use before syncing PCB with schematic'). This clearly signals when to use the tool in the design process, though it doesn't explicitly state error conditions or 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.