export_excellon_drill

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds format specifics (IPC-NC-349, metric tool headers), but says nothing about whether output is returned inline, written to disk, or overwritten, which is the key behavior for a 'generate file' tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with verb and artifact and then layers technical specifics. It is dense but contains little filler; the trailing 'for automated CNC drilling machines' is the only mildly redundant clause.

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 tool with a nested required parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify return shape or file-destination behavior, and it does not. It covers the artifact format adequately but leaves the agent guessing about output handling and the exact role of optional inputs like 'connections'.

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%, so all five parameters (including the nested 'modules' object and optional 'connections') are already documented in-schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the output format, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Generate) and a precise resource (IPC-NC-349 Excellon CNC drill file, .drl) with format-level detail like metric tool headers (T01C...). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling exporters like export_gerber_bundle by being the drill-specific step, though it never names or contrasts an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternatives. The phrase 'completing the 5-layer PCB manufacturing bundle' hints that it belongs in a downstream export sequence, but the agent receives no guidance on ordering, prerequisites, or which sibling exporter handles which artifact.

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