Export a library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the non-destructive nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects like file overwriting) but does not contradict the annotations, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 two sentences and compact, but it includes necessary detail like the embedded models in JSON and the summary columns in CSV. It is well-structured and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's output, without redundancy.

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 covers the key functionality, format distinctions, and library types (PcbLib/SchLib), and explains the embedded model handling for import restoration. It is complete for a tool with no output schema and simple parameters, though it does not mention error cases or file existence checks, which are not critical.

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 100% for all three parameters (filepath, format, compact), and the tool description does not add further parameter-specific semantics beyond reiterating the formats. Baseline 3 is warranted because the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 verb 'export', the resource 'Altium library', the two output formats (JSON/CSV), and the intended purposes (version control, backup, external processing). It is unambiguous and immediately makes the tool's function obvious.

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 explains the difference between JSON and CSV outputs and what each includes, giving clear guidance on when each format is appropriate. It does not explicitly compare with sibling read tools (e.g., read_pcblib), but the output detail is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool for export scenarios.

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