Run electrical rule checks

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: findings include evidence confidence and rule basis, and a rule violation returns ok=true with data.valid=false. This clarifies the non-boolean success semantics and result structure, going beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded with the action ('Lints the inferred netlist'), and efficiently lists check categories without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

Core purpose and result behavior are covered, and an output schema exists so return details are not needed. However, the impact of key parameters (topologyMode, applySwitchStates) on the checks is not explained, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation. Adequate but not fully complete for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'path' has a description). The description does not mention any of the parameters, leaving topologyMode, applySwitchStates, and expectedProjectDigest unexplained. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not add parameter context.

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 'lints the inferred netlist' and enumerates specific electrical rule checks (supply shorts, LEDs across rails, etc.), making its function concrete. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crumb_analyze_design or crumb_validate_design by focusing on electrical rule verification.

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 for electrical rule checking of a netlist, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other crumb tools (e.g., crumb_validate_design for general validation or crumb_analyze_design for analysis). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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