kicad_ctrl_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Run DRC validation' without revealing whether the tool modifies the PCB file, requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. The note to review results is a guideline, not a behavioural trait.

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 very concise at two short sentences, with no unnecessary words. However, the prefix 'Station 5:' adds minimal context and could be omitted or explained for clarity. The important note is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (a single-parameter validation), the description covers the basic action and provides a sequential hint. However, it lacks details about the output format, return values, prerequisites (e.g., project must be open), and potential side effects, especially since an output schema exists but is not described.

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 input schema already describes the lone parameter 'project_path' with full coverage (100%). The tool description adds nothing about this parameter beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Run DRC validation on the PCB', identifying the specific verb (Run) and resource (DRC validation on PCB). It distinguishes DRC from other validation types like ERC, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as kicad_ctrl_analyze or kicad_ctrl_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 provides a usage hint: 'Review DRC results before proceeding to export,' indicating that DRC is a pre-export step. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like kicad_ctrl_erc or other kicad_ctrl_* tools, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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