pcb_drc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Run DRC' without revealing side effects (read-only?), output format, exit codes, or error conditions. Even the presence of an output schema isn't referenced, leaving the agent without expectations.

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, waste-free sentence that is easy to parse. However, it lacks structure such as parameter breakdown or output explanation, making it concise but not well-rounded for a tool with four parameters.

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 has four parameters and an output schema (not visible), the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what the DRC report contains, how the output is saved, or any prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 description mentions the '.kicad_pcb' file, which maps to the required 'board' parameter, but it provides no information about 'out', 'format', or 'exit_code_violations'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for these undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and specifies the resource as a '.kicad_pcb' file, clearly identifying the tool as performing design rule check on KiCad PCB files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sch_erc which targets schematics, but it doesn't expand the DRC acronym or provide additional scope details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sch_erc or export tools. The description does not mention exclusions or specific scenarios (e.g., checking manufacturability), so the agent has no situational context.

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