export_netlist_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden; it does disclose that this is a write operation and enumerates exactly what gets written (components, nets, terminals, hierarchy). It does not state overwrite semantics, whether directories in out_path are created, error behavior on a bad path, or permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the action and content, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a simple two-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and written content but omits file-system behavior (overwrite, directory creation, error handling) and the meaning of the project parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured behavioral metadata.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies out_path as the JSON destination, but the 'project' parameter is never mentioned and its role (project identifier/scope) is only inferable from sibling tools like list_projects.

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?

Precise verb ('Write'), resource ('full compiled netlist'), explicit scope (components, nets, terminals, hierarchy), format (JSON) and destination (out_path) all in one sentence. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings like get_net or search_nets, which retrieve fragments rather than exporting the whole netlist.

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 phrasing 'full compiled netlist' hints that export happens after compilation, and the tool's nature as the sole export utility implies when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as requiring the netlist to be compiled first.

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