convert_geda

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conversion process (using pcbnew bindings) and output format (ZIP with .kicad_pcb), but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting), required permissions, or error handling. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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 three sentences, each adding value: main action, technical detail (pcbnew bindings), and output format. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core 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?

Given that the tool has two parameters, an output schema exists (though not detailed in description), and the conversion is straightforward, the description covers key points: input type, conversion method, output format. It does not explain return structure beyond 'ZIP archive', but the output schema likely covers that. Minor gap: no mention that input can be a zip archive (though schema says so).

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 descriptions for both parameters ('file_path' and 'output_path') already present. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as file format specifics or common pitfalls. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Convert a gEDA PCB board file to KiCad format') and specifies the resource (geda .pcb file). It distinguishes itself from sibling conversion tools by mentioning the specific format (gEDA) and notes that only board files are supported, not schematics.

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 states what the tool does and its limitation (board files only), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like convert_allegro or convert_pads. The context of the sibling list implies format-specific conversion, but no 'when-not' or alternatives are provided.

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