run_drc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists checks but does not mention whether the tool modifies the file, how long it takes, what the return value is (output schema exists but not described), or whether it supports partial runs. Inadequate for a tool with no 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 minimal and front-loaded: a heading line followed by a bullet list of checks. Every sentence is relevant, no waste.

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 one parameter and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the output (though output schema exists), potential errors, or integration with siblings like get_drc_violations. Could be improved.

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 single parameter pcb_path has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 runs DRC on PCB, and lists specific checks like clearance violations, track spacing, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_erc (schematic ERC) and export_drc_report (report export).

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 it is for PCB DRC, but siblings like run_erc and get_drc_violations exist. No when-not-to or context beyond the checks list.

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