get_design_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: KiCAD 10.x extraction source, 'not configured' defaults falling back to internal defaults, and that the values represent manufacturing limits. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches understanding.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and outputs, the second explains context (KiCAD version and defaults), and the third gives a usage directive. No redundant wording; front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return types. It covers the key contextual aspects: what the rules are, where they come from on KiCAD 10.x, fallback behavior for unset values, and when to invoke the tool—making it complete for a read-only query.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds clarity about the output (returning specific millimeter values), which aligns with baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Returns' and names the exact resource: the board's design rules derived from the Default netclass, listing the specific dimensions (clearance, track width, via drill, via pad). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's for reading rules, not creating tracks/vias or listing zones.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this before creating tracks or vias to know valid minimum dimensions.' This provides a clear use case and implies the tool is a prerequisite for creation tools like create_track and create_via, giving strong contextual guidance without needing to name alternatives.

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