sch_export_bom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level function and does not mention side effects, output file handling, or error cases. As an export tool, it likely writes a file but this is not disclosed.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary action, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the role of 'fields' or 'out_csv', and the lack of parameter semantics makes the tool difficult to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The parameter names and defaults suggest meanings (e.g., 'schematic' input, 'out_csv' output file, 'fields' selection), but the description adds no value in clarifying expected values or formats.

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 a CSV BOM from a KiCad schematic, which is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like netlist export. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other export tools or mention the context of KiCad projects.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for BOM generation, but there is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when another tool like sch_export_netlist would be preferred.

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