proj_run_erc

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses a side effect (an implicit compile of the project) and that the return value is only a confirmation, not the violations themselves — a real behavioral constraint an agent would otherwise get wrong. It doesn't mention whether the compile invalidates prior compile state, whether unsaved changes are included, or runtime cost.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the compile requirement, then the follow-up pointer — good ordering with no filler. The trailing 'Returns: Dictionary confirming ERC execution' is mildly redundant given an output schema exists and is vague about content.

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 tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered: what runs, that compilation precedes it, and where to get violations. The one meaningful gap is differentiation from the sibling `run_erc`, which the description never addresses.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Note that the ERC settings/severity configuration is implicitly whatever the project has, which is left unstated.

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 ('Run Electrical Rules Check on the focused project'), so an agent knows exactly what action executes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `run_erc` (or `design_validate`), which appears to cover similar ground, leaving scope differentiation partly to inference.

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?

Gives a clear operational sequence: compile happens first and is required, then ERC, then call `proj_get_erc_violations()` for results. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to `run_erc`/`run_drc` or any prerequisite about project state.

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