sch_erc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Run ERC' without mentioning that it likely writes an output file (`out` parameter), whether it modifies the schematic, or how violations are reported. This lack of behavioral context leaves the agent guessing about side effects and results.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential details, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. The brevity is more a drawback than a virtue because it omits critical information.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of behavior or usage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention what ERC produces, how to interpret results, or how it relates to sibling tools. The agent cannot effectively select and invoke this tool based on the provided description.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (`schematic`, `out`, `format`, `exit_code_violations`). It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the absence of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Run ERC') and the target resource (a `.kicad_sch` file), making it unmistakable among siblings like `sch_export_bom` and `pcb_drc`. It specifically identifies this as the schematic electrical rules check tool.

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 `pcb_drc` or export tools. It doesn't mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make ERC appropriate. The description only states the action without contextualizing its role.

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