export_bom

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, and readOnly=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable operation. The description usefully adds that the work is done via kicad-cli and that parsed rows come back, but it omits the notable side effect (a CSV is written to disk) and any truncation behavior from max_rows. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is modest added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, format, engine, and return shape are all packed in efficiently. Nothing is padded and nothing needs to be cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema covers most parameters. However, for a tool that writes a file and caps output at max_rows (default 500), the description never warns about the on-disk artifact or potential row truncation, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents fields, group_by, output_path, and schematic_path in detail. The description contributes nothing parameter-specific (no hint about max_rows truncation or grouping semantics), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (export a bill of materials as CSV), names the underlying mechanism (kicad-cli), and notes it returns parsed rows. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling export_fab, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as export_fab, render_board, or sch_netlist. The only routing-relevant detail ('any sheet of the project works; the root sheet is used') lives in the schema, not the description.

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