pcb_export_ipc2581

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or output behavior. It does not mention that a file is created or whether the board must be open.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices detail, though it earns high marks for structure.

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 description is too minimal for a 2-parameter export tool with no annotations, missing context on what IPC-2581 is, what the board parameter expects, and how the output file is used. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter and usage context.

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 explain the 'board' or 'out_file' parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 exports IPC-2581 manufacturing data, identifying the specific format and action. This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like pcb_export_gerbers and pcb_export_step.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as selecting IPC-2581 over Gerber or STEP formats. Usage is implied by the format name but never explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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