sch_run_erc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses return values (error/warning counts and a report path) and the meaning of errors > 0, but does not mention side effects such as whether a report file is written to disk, any prerequisites like an opened project, or failure modes.

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 focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then supplies high-value information about outputs and interpretation.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return values, and how to interpret errors. It could be more complete by noting prerequisites or side effects, but the essential information for invoking and understanding the result is present.

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 single parameter sch_path is fully described in the schema, including its optionality and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Run KiCad's Electrical Rules Check (ERC) on a schematic via kicad-cli." It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like sch_generate and pcb_generate by naming a specific check phase and reporting behavior.

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 when the tool is useful (before layout, when structural problems need fixing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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