export_cpl

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it explicitly states the tool never touches the network and explains the rotation/offset derivation and the library JLC-ROTATION/JLC-X-OFFSET/JLC-Y-OFFSET override precedence, plus that ambiguous derivations are surfaced for review.

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?

It is dense and technical but front-loads the artifact identity before the orientation mechanics, and each sentence adds information about behavior rather than restating the name. Slightly compressed for one paragraph, but nothing reads as filler.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys what the agent gets back (a CPL CSV, plus a review list when derivations are ambiguous) and what precondition matters (cache populated via check_jlc_orientation). It stops short of naming the output location or column layout, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the single parameter's meaning, and it does: it explains what jlc_orientation does (apply derived rotation/offset when footprint data is cached), the precedence of library attributes, and the fallback of listing ambiguous cases for review. It only omits the explicit true/false semantics and the default value.

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 names the specific artifact produced (a JLCPCB-format pick-and-place/CPL CSV) and explains the placement convention behind it, which distinguishes it from sibling export_bom. It is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a leading verb, relying on the tool name for the action, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It gives operational context for the jlc_orientation path and points to check_jlc_orientation(fetch=true) to prime the cache, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when an agent should call this versus export_bom or get_assembly_quote, so the routing among siblings is only implied.

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