export_openpnp_job

Does 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 profile is fully covered. The description adds that the output is 'production' grade and targets automated robotic assembly, but says nothing about where/whether the CSV is written or what returns. Read-only generation of file content is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 sentence with the verb and artifact front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The parenthetical column list is dense but earns its place by clarifying expected output; only minor cost is a slightly run-on structure.

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 compensates by enumerating the CSV columns, and the schema documents the required modules source and board dimensions. Missing only usage sequencing and any note on how the job relates to the feeder/pick-and-place pipeline.

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 three parameters (modules, board_width_mm, board_height_mm) are already documented with defaults. The description's field list (part, designator, X/Y, rotation, nozzle ID, feeder slot) describes output content rather than adding meaning to the inputs, so 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 ('Generate') plus a precisely named resource (OpenPnP/industrial SMT pick-and-place job CSV), with the exact emitted columns enumerated so the agent knows what artifact results. The format specificity cleanly separates it from siblings like export_manufacturing_bom, export_kicad_netlist, and generate_assembly_process_plan.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated. It never mentions the upstream dependency on synthesize_circuit/validate_netlist, nor how it relates to the adjacent calculate_smt_feeder_matrix or generate_assembly_process_plan tools, leaving the agent to infer sequencing.

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