Export PCB Component Pick and Place (CPL)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the source is the currently active PCB document, but says nothing about where the file is written by default, whether an existing file is overwritten, or that the operation produces a local artifact despite the read-only hint — the kind of context that would matter for a file-producing tool.

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?

A single sentence with the artifact and source front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and the parenthetical use case is compact rather than redundant.

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?

With five optional parameters and no output schema, the description should tell the agent what the call yields (a file path or status) and what happens when fileName/destinationPath are omitted. It identifies the source document context but leaves output handling and default write location unspecified, which is a notable gap for a file-export tool.

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 80%, with unit and format already documented as enums with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about unit/format choices or the file-naming and destination behavior implied by fileName and destinationPath, leaving the undocumented timeoutMs entirely unexplained. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Exports the Pick and Place / Centroid (CPL) file from the active EasyEDA Pro PCB" gives a specific verb plus a clearly named artifact and its domain (SMT assembly, JLCPCB). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the adjacent export/report siblings such as easyeda_get_pcb_placement_report or easyeda_export_bom, so an agent must infer which output each produces.

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 clause "for SMT assembly (e.g. JLCPCB)" implies the intended situation, which is real usage context. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites beyond an active PCB, and no pointer to the closest alternative (get_pcb_placement_report) for agents that only want to inspect placement data rather than export a file.

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