run_erc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose meaningful behavior: backend dispatch (native Altium ERC vs kicad-cli sch erc run against the schematic on disk), the requirement to save pending edits first, and the shape of the result (violation counts plus normalized list). It does not explicitly state side effects or whether the on-disk file is modified, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action, then backend dispatch details, then return shape. Three tight sentences with little waste, though the final sentence about backend is cryptic and could be clearer rather than longer.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, backend branching, the save precondition, and the return content. The main omission is disambiguation from the sibling proj_run_erc, which an agent would still need to resolve.

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 backend parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that backend 'targets one tool in "both" mode,' but never states accepted values, default behavior, or what happens when omitted, so the semantics remain vague.

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 the schematic Electrical Rules Check') and scopes it to the open design, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling proj_run_erc or from proj_get_erc_violations, leaving an agent to guess which ERC entry point to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'on the open design' and the note to save pending edits first, which is a useful precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as proj_run_erc or pcb_run_drc.

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