export_ipc_d356

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is a universal ASCII format targeted at specific test hardware, but says nothing about where the file is written, what is returned, or whether required inputs must come from a prior synthesis step — all of which the annotations do not cover.

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 naming the artifact, format, and audience with no filler. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 five parameters, nested object inputs, and no output schema, the definition should clarify the return artifact (file path, string contents, or written file) and the required upstream synthesize_circuit inputs. The description delivers the format context but leaves the return contract and workflow prerequisites unstated.

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% (including the origin note for modules/netlist and defaults for job_name and board dimensions), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the file type, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (Generate) and a precise resource (IPC-D-356A ASCII bare-board electrical test netlist file), plus the consuming equipment. The format naming implicitly separates it from sibling exporters like export_ipc2581 and export_kicad_netlist, but no sibling is ever named directly, so an agent must infer the boundary from format knowledge alone.

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?

Naming flying-probe testers (AEMG, ATG, MicroCraft) and bed-of-nails fixtures implies the downstream use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion against the many other export_* siblings, and no prerequisite such as 'requires netlist from synthesize_circuit'.

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