export_fabrication_outputs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It does state that native Gerber/drill requests fail explicitly, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits other important details like file output, permissions, or side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.

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, tightly-written sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds a key caveat. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given three parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'release-review manifest' contains, what the parameters control, or what the output schema returns. The tool is not fully contextualized within the broader toolset.

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 mention any of the three parameters (path, include_dnp, request_native_outputs). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 specifies a clear action ('Export') and object ('a release-review manifest'), and explicitly notes that native Gerber/drill requests fail, distinguishing this from other export tools like export_assembly_outputs. The scope is well-defined.

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 usage for exporting release-review manifests and warns against native Gerber/drill requests, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use guidance. Context is sufficient for basic selection but not comprehensive.

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