pcb_bom_export

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that automatic LCSC querying is unavailable due to API protection, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the board), or details about the output structure beyond noting JSON and CSV.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action and result. It packs key details (aggregation options, return format) without waste, though it could benefit from a brief usage scenario.

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?

For a single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the input mapping and the output format, but lacks details on when the tool is necessary or how the CSV/JSON are structured, which could be important for an agent to interpret results.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters, and the description adds alpha information about the format of the mapping and the reason for limitation (protected API). The schema already provides the exact structure, so the description doesn't add much beyond that.

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 tool exports a PCB BOM aggregated by component name, including quantity, designators, nets, and LCSC part numbers, and returns both JSON and CSV formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being an export-specific operation, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative for BOM export.

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 BOM data but does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions the LCSC codes mapping requirement but does not provide guidance on when this tool is preferred over other PCB analysis tools like pcb_netlist_report or sch_get_netlist.

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