pcb_get_room_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing the return shape, field names, coordinate units in mils, and the important semantic caveat that these are not physical room objects. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or side-effect behavior, but 'Get' strongly implies a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately follows with the key semantic caveat, and then presents the return structure compactly. There is no wasted or redundant text.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides ample context: what is returned, the rule kind, coordinate units, and the distinction from physical room objects. The output schema can cover exact value types, so the description does not need to do more.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description is misleading or incomplete in that respect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get room-like rules, explicitly of kind eRule_ConfinementConstraint. It also distinguishes the result from physical IPCB_Room objects, which prevents confusion with sibling tools like pcb_create_room.

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 usage by clarifying that these are confinement-constraint design rules, not physical board rooms. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus pcb_get_design_rules or pcb_create_room, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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