run_drc

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description safely adds that it returns a structural report with violation lists and coordinates, and mentions it writes a report file to output_dir. No contradictions with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement and parameter explanation. No redundant content, though the return value mention is somewhat vague.

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?

Given that an output schema exists rings, the description sufficiently covers the output nature, but it omits any prerequisites (e.g., PCB must exist, valid path) and does not specify what happens when violations are found vs. none. It could also mention the default output directory resolution more precisely.

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?

Both parameters are explained in the description (path to .kicad_pcb file and directory for report), adding meaning beyond the schema which has only defaults. The description clarifies the file type and default behavior, though it could specify output file naming.

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 performs a Design Rules Check (DRC) on a PCB, which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from similar tools like run_erc (electrical rules check) by explicitly naming DRC, and from other PCB-related tools.

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 notes both arguments are optional and explains their defaults, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_erc or check_placement. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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