convert_allegro

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conversion path (KiCad 10's built-in importer), supported file versions, output format (ZIP with .kicad_pcb and footprints), and the Eagle ambiguity resolution. Lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error states, but covers core behavioral traits well.

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 concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, uses bullet-like phrasing for supporting details, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints, conversion process, and output contents. It could mention potential errors (invalid file, unsupported version) but remains sufficient for safe invocation.

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 100%, with both parameters described verbatim in schema and description. The description reinforces the schema's descriptions but adds no new semantic detail beyond 'output is a ZIP archive' which is also inferred. Meets baseline but does not exceed.

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 tool converts Allegro PCB board files to KiCad format, specifying input format (.brd), versions (16-23), and output (KiCad .kicad_pcb within ZIP). It distinguishes itself from sibling converters (geda, pads, protel, kicad_version) by naming the source format and explicitly noting board-only support, making purpose unmistakable.

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 description provides contextual usage guidance: it notes that schematics are not supported, describes the auto-detection of .brd vs Eagle via magic bytes, and states that no Cadence software is required. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling converters, the tool name and format-specific details suffice for most use cases.

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