Get Design Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact categories of design rules returned, which helps the agent understand what data to expect. It does not add details about side effects or auth, but none are needed for this read-only operation.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action ('Return the current PCB design rules') and immediately provides concrete examples in parentheses. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 read-only getter with no parameters, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly explains what the tool returns, and the output schema covers the return structure. No additional context is needed.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter information, but none is necessary. The description does not ignore any parameter semantics because there are no parameters.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current PCB design rules and enumerates specific categories (clearance, track width, via sizes, courtyard settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_design_rules (which modifies rules) and run_drc (which checks violations). The verb 'Return' and resource 'current PCB design rules' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: whenever you need the current PCB design rules. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature and contrast with set_design_rules make the usage context clear. No explicit 'when-not' guidance is given, but it is not critical for a simple getter.

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