export_kicad_schematic

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by spelling out what the emitted artifact contains (sheet layout, component symbols, pin references, LCSC attributes). It still does not mention where the file is written or whether it overwrites an existing .kicad_sch.

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 the verb and format up front and zero filler. Every clause (format version, file extension, contents) carries information.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully characterizes the returned/generated artifact, and the required 'modules' input is documented in the schema. It stops short of stating the workflow dependency or output destination needed to call it fully 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 'title', 'modules' and 'connections'. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g. what the nested modules object must contain) beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Export') plus a precisely scoped resource ('KiCad 8/9 S-Expression schematic file (.kicad_sch)'), with the output's contents enumerated. The KiCad-schematic focus clearly separates it from the sibling export_kicad_netlist without needing the schema opened.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'directly viewable and editable in KiCad Eeschema' tells the agent why one would call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. that modules should come from synthesize_circuit), and no contrast with export_kicad_netlist or export_ipc2581.

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