run_erc

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: auto-redirect to root schematic, returns JSON report, and the existence of a report file via output_dir. It also explains the purpose of the auto-redirect (avoiding false positives). No contradiction 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 well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a key behavior note, return type, and an Arg list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant fluff. The 'Args:' section is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, key behavior (auto-redirect), output format, and all parameters with defaults. With an output schema available, the need to detail return values is reduced. It adequately addresses the sub-sheet use case, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by clearly defining all three parameters (schematic_path, output_dir, project_path), including their defaults and specific roles. Notably, project_path is explained as 'for explicit root resolution', which adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb phrase: 'Run Electrical Rules Check (ERC) on a schematic.' It identifies the resource (schematic) and the action (running ERC). The addition about auto-redirecting to root schematic distinguishes it from other schematic analysis tools and clarifies its scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, especially noting its behavior on sub-sheets ('Auto-redirects to root schematic... to avoid false positives'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently clear for selecting ERC over similar tools like run_drc.

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