kicad.run_erc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the prerequisite state and specific check behaviors (finding unconnected pins, missing power). However, it omits whether the operation is destructive or read-only, and doesn't clarify that results are written to the output_path parameter.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. Prerequisites are front-loaded in brackets, followed by the action and concrete examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a diagnostic tool with an output schema (which handles return value documentation). However, given zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should have included parameter semantics and safety profile (read-only nature) to be complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description fails to compensate. It provides no explanation of the required 'output_path' parameter (e.g., expected file format, content of the report, or whether it overwrites existing files). This is a significant documentation gap for the sole parameter.

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 provides specific verb ('Run'), resource ('Electrical Rules Check'), and scope ('on the schematic'). Explicit examples ('unconnected pins, missing power') further clarify functionality, effectively distinguishing from sibling run_drc which targets the board.

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?

Front-loaded prerequisite '[Requires open project]' explicitly states when the tool can be used. The mention of 'schematic' provides clear context for choosing this over board-checking alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name run_drc as the alternative.

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