pcb_run_drc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool modifies the board, takes longer, or requires specific board state. The word 'check' implies non-destructive read-only behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single sentence, no wasted words, and front-loads the action. It is as concise as possible while still being informative.

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 description lacks details on output (e.g., errors reported, pass/fail) and side effects. For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least mention what the user can expect after execution, making it incomplete.

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?

With 0 parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning (since there are none) and does not explain what aspects of DRC are checked, which could add value.

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?

The description '运行 PCB 设计规则检查 (DRC)' clearly states the verb (run) and specific resource (PCB design rule check). The tool name itself is unambiguous, and the description reinforces it. No confusion with sibling tools like sch_run_drc due to different domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For a simple tool, some context about when DRC should be run (e.g., after design changes) would be helpful.

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