rf_export_altium

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that non-dry runs touch the board, that the output is design intent rather than raw EM polygons, and the integer-mil rounding/impedance risk. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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?

Three short, purposeful paragraphs with the main action first, the output model second, and the critical dry-run warning third. Every sentence earns its place and the formatting improves scannability.

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?

The core workflow is well covered and an output schema exists for return values, so that burden is reduced. However, with six parameters and 0% schema coverage, several important inputs — especially the free-form spec and params — are not explained. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverae is 0%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters. It only really explains dry_run — its default, effect, and purpose. spec, params, place_pour, place_vias, and origin_mils are left undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity about how an agent should populate them.

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 the exact action — 'Write a design into the PCB document the user currently has open' — and specifies the output form: centrelines as tracks, ground vias as vias, coplanar ground as polygon pour, explicitly distinguishing it from EM-polygon exports. The verb, resource, and style are all clear.

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?

Provides clear context: requires an open PCB document and directs the agent to use dry_run first and review the quantisation report before committing. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like rf_altium_preflight or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier.

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