Run Drc

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

The description adds the optional file-saving side effect (reportPath) beyond annotations, and mentions it returns violations. However, it does not explain potential side effects of running DRC (e.g., updating markers or consuming time), though annotations already flag destructiveHint=true.

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 with two clauses, front-loading the primary action ('Run the KiCAD DRC') and then the return value, followed by the optional file save. No filler.

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?

Given one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown) that likely details the violations return format, the description covers the essential purpose and optional side effect. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring a board to be loaded, but those are implied by 'current PCB' and covered by sibling tools.

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 schema already fully documents reportPath with a description, and the tool description only mirrors that 'Optionally save the report to a file' without adding new semantic details. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies.

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 runs KiCAD DRC on the current PCB and returns violations, with the verb 'Run' distinguishing it from sibling query tools like get_drc_violations. The mention of 'current PCB' provides scope and differentiates from run_erc (schematic ERC).

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 use when DRC results are needed on the current board, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_drc_violations or check_clearance, nor any prerequisites like an open board.

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