export_bom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the save_first behavior and that schematic_path defaults to the open project, but says nothing about overwriting an existing CSV, required permissions, or side effects of the export. Partial behavioral context only.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a compact Args list that maps cleanly to the parameters. Minimal waste, though the leading and trailing whitespace and bare 'Args:' block are slightly less polished than prose.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the three parameters are covered. However, for a file-writing export tool with no annotations, the description omits overwrite behavior and failure modes, leaving an agent without enough to predict side effects.

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 coverage is 0% and 3 parameters exist, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents output_path as the destination .csv, schematic_path as an explicit .kicad_sch defaulting to the open project, and save_first as saving before export. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't clarify path format or relative-vs-absolute handling.

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), resource (bill of materials CSV), and source (the open schematic). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like export_netlist, export_gerbers, and export_pdf, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

The description implies usage context (requires an open schematic or an explicit schematic_path) but never states when to prefer this over sibling export tools or any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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