Run Erc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns violations and suggests timing, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the schematic must be open or how the tool handles errors. With high annotation coverage, the description adds only marginal behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The core function is front-loaded, and the usage note is brief and actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is simple, with one well-described parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description covers purpose and usage. It could mention prerequisites like whether the schematic must be open, but given the read-only and idempotent nature, that is not essential. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'schematicPath', which is already described as 'Path to the .kicad_sch schematic file'. The description does not add parameter-level details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 the KiCAD Electrical Rules Check (ERC) on a schematic and returns all violations. It specifies the exact verb and resource, and the phrase 'on a schematic' distinguishes it from the sibling tool run_drc which checks PCB design rules.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use after wiring to verify the schematic before generating a netlist.' This indicates when to invoke the tool relative to other steps, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. That is sufficient for this simple, well-defined check operation.

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