Export hardware netlist data as a standard KiCad S-Expression netlist (.net) file compatible with Pcbnew 6-10.
Export standard KiCad S-Expression netlist (.net) compatible with KiCad 6/7/8/9/10 Pcbnew.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Schematic / board project title. | CircuitAgent_Design |
| netlist | Yes | Hardware netlist dictionary or synthesis result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered without help from the description. The description adds useful format/version-compatibility context but says nothing about where the file is written, whether an existing .net is overwritten, or what is returned.
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 and its compatibility; nothing is padded or 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 a nested-object required parameter and no output schema, the description should say what the export produces (file path, content, or written-to-disk side effect) and what shape the input netlist must take. Those gaps are modest for a two-parameter exporter but leave an agent guessing about the result of the call.
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 both 'title' and 'netlist' (including the nested-object nature of netlist). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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) plus a specific resource and format (KiCad S-Expression netlist, .net), and even pins version compatibility with Pcbnew 6-10. The file-type specificity inherently separates it from export_kicad_schematic, export_specctra_dsn and export_ipc2581, though it never names a sibling explicitly to draw the contrast.
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 statement of when to choose this exporter over the other export_* siblings, no prerequisite (e.g. a validated netlist, like validate_netlist), and no condition under which it should be avoided. Usage must be inferred purely from the output format name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.