kicad.export_pdf

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. It successfully communicates the open project constraint, but fails to disclose side effects (filesystem write), overwrite behavior, or valid target enum values ('schematic' vs 'pcb'). The mutation aspect (creating files) is implied but not explicit.

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?

Optimal length: one sentence stating purpose, one example demonstrating usage. The prerequisite is front-loaded in brackets. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy or filler text.

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?

Appropriate for a 2-parameter tool with an output schema (return values needn't be described). Covers primary use case and prerequisite. Minor gap: valid values for the 'target' string parameter remain undefined despite having a default value in schema.

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% - neither parameter has a description in the schema. The description provides an example showing output_path accepts file paths and target accepts 'schematic', but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap. Valid values for target (likely 'pcb' alternative) and path format requirements remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb ('Export') + resource ('schematic or PCB') + format ('PDF') clearly stated. Square brackets efficiently flag the open project prerequisite. Distinct from sibling export tools (export_bom, export_gerbers, export_svg, export_netlist) by specifying PDF output format.

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 '[Requires open project]' prefix establishes a clear prerequisite for invocation. The example demonstrates correct syntax. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over export_svg or export_gerbers, and doesn't document valid values for the 'target' parameter beyond the example.

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