kicad.run_drc

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds prerequisite context ('Requires open project') and workflow constraint (Gerber dependency), but lacks disclosure of failure modes, side effects, or what the DRC report contains despite having an output schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded constraint '[Requires open project]' appears first, followed by action and workflow dependency. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or generic filler.

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 the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, with zero schema coverage on parameters and no annotations, the failure to document the 'output_path' parameter leaves a significant gap in completeness for a tool of this 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?

Critical gap: Schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'output_path' parameter. The description fails to compensate by explaining what this path represents (report file? directory?), expected format, or semantics, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run Design Rules Check on the PCB' with specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'run_erc' by specifying 'Design Rules' (PCB layout) vs electrical rules, and links to 'export_gerbers' as a downstream dependency.

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?

Excellent workflow guidance: '[Requires open project]' states prerequisites explicitly, and 'Must pass before exporting Gerbers' provides clear sequencing logic relative to sibling tool export_gerbers, establishing when this tool must be invoked in the workflow.

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