pcb_get_design_rules

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral details such as read-only status, potential side effects, or error behavior. With no annotations, this is a gap, though the 'Get' verb implies a read operation. It does not state what happens if session_id is invalid or if no DRC constraints are found.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key output contents. It is tautology-free and has no wasted words.

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 lists four specific DRC constraint types but does not provide an output schema or explain the return format/units. While adequate for a simple getter, it could be more complete by stating that it returns all extracted DRC constraints or by explaining error cases.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter, session_id, as coming from pcb_parse_layout, so the description does not need to add more. The description does not mention the parameter, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets extracted DRC constraints, listing specific constraint types (min trace, min space, min drill, min annular ring). This distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_get_drill_table and pcb_get_stackup, which fetch different aspects of the design.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_get_drill_table or pcb_get_manufacturing_notes, nor does it specify any prerequisites beyond the session_id parameter.

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