mfg_import_allegro

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

The annotations only provide openWorldHint, which does little to characterize behavior. The description lacks any disclosure about potential overwrites, required project state, format conversion limitations, or error conditions. It reads as a bare statement of intent with no side effects or edge cases noted.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward import operation, though brevity comes at the cost of detail evaluated elsewhere.

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 minimal and fails to convey prerequisites, default behavior for output_dir, or any nuances of Allegro import. For a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient to guide an agent on correct invocation.

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 compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'output_dir' or 'allegro_brd_path' at all, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema titles and names.

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 states a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('Allegro board') with a clear destination ('KiCad project directory'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling import tools like mfg_import_geda and mfg_import_pads.

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 implies when to use the tool (when importing an Allegro board) but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as checking support via mfg_check_import_support first.

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