Get Drc Violations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'current' which implies the results reflect the latest DRC run, a stateful nuance not captured by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if no DRC has been run, leaving a slight gap.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Return the list') and specifies the resource. No fluff or redundant jargon. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safe annotations, the description is largely complete. The only missing context is an explicit note that this reads previously computed DRC results and does not trigger a new check, which would help disambiguate from run_drc. Still, the description is sufficient for most use cases.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the severity parameter, including an enum and description. The tool description repeats the severity filter with examples but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic weight.

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's function: returning the list of current DRC violations on the PCB, with an optional severity filter. The verb 'Return' specifies the read-only nature, distinguishing it from siblings like run_drc that perform a check. The mention of severity filter adds precision.

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 the tool is used to retrieve DRC violations but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. There is no mention of needing to run DRC first or that run_drc is the complementary tool for executing checks. The usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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