export_ipc2581

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the packaged contents (single-file XML replacing a multi-file handoff bundle), but says nothing about where the file is written, how output is retrieved, or prerequisites such as needing synthesize_circuit output first.

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 with zero filler; every clause carries information (format, contents, audience, alternative). It is dense and long but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by thoroughly describing what the produced artifact contains. Combined with the annotations' safety profile and the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to select and invoke it 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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps its content list (stackup, BOM, nets) onto modules/connections/stackup_layers but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (IPC-2581B single-file intelligent fabrication data package in XML), then enumerates its contents (stackup, BOM, placed components, nets with pin membership, board profile). This clearly separates it from the other export_* siblings, notably export_gerber_bundle and export_excellon_drill.

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 phrase 'replacing the legacy Gerber+Excellon+TXT handoff bundle' implicitly routes the agent away from the gerber/excellon siblings toward this one, and naming Siemens X / Altium / Zuken / EMS houses gives downstream context. It stops short of an explicit 'use instead of export_gerber_bundle when X' statement, so no exclusions are spelled out.

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