pcb_export_drill

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral context beyond the tool's name. It does not disclose side effects, whether files are written, required permissions, or anything about the output. The description entirely fails to carry the transparency burden.

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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its place because it provides no additional value over the tool name. A longer description with more detail would be more appropriate.

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?

The tool has an output schema and only two parameters, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the output or any context around the export process. With no annotations, this level of description is inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema itself has 'board' and 'out_dir' with a default, but the description adds no meaning about what these parameters control or how they should be used.

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 'Export drill files' clearly states the verb (export) and resource (drill files), distinguishing it from sibling export tools like pcb_export_gerbers and pcb_export_step. However, it lacks detail about what drill files are or their format, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The only implied usage is literally 'when you need to export drill files,' which is trivial.

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