run_drc

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing verdict semantics: what the result counts (clearance violations, unconnected items, schematic parity) and the non-obvious rule that unrouted nets can never be PASS.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. The verdict details and the unrouted-nets rule each earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description covers the board_path input adequately through the schema. The main residual gap is the undocumented severity enum values, but overall the definition is complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 75%, above the midpoint, so the schema does most of the work. The description references schematic parity in the verdict, loosely tying to the schematic_parity flag, but does not explain severity levels ('default','all','error','warning') or the all_track_errors switch. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Design Rules Check on a board') plus the underlying tool (kicad-cli). It further specifies what the check counts, which sharpens the purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling run_erc, relying on 'board' to imply the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied (run this to check a board's design rules), and 'Works whether or not KiCad is open' is a useful operational note. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like run_erc or route_check for schematic or routing checks.

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