get_erc_violations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., ERC must have been run) or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with only 5 words, making it concise. However, it could be slightly more descriptive while remaining succinct.

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?

With an output schema present, return value details are not needed. However, the description lacks context about the tool's place in the ERC workflow, such as the need to run ERC first, making it somewhat incomplete given the complexity and sibling tools.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; the word 'filtered' is already implied by the severity 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?

The description 'Get filtered ERC violations from schematic' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (ERC violations from schematic), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_erc' and 'export_erc_report'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving violations after ERC run, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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