Run Schematic Electrical Rules Check (ERC)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by saying it uses the native EasyEDA Pro engine and enumerates what it reports (rule violations, unconnected pins, design errors), but says nothing about whether the run blocks, how long results take (despite a 120s timeout cap), or whether findings are persisted to a report.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the essential scope ('schematic', 'active document', 'reports violations') comes first. It is efficient but leaves unused room that could have carried usage or parameter guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values; it does so only loosely by listing categories of findings, without describing shape, severity levels, or counts. For a read-only analysis tool with a nested target object and timeout, this is adequate but leaves real gaps around result format and target-staleness behavior.

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 only 67%, and the description explains none of the three parameters — no explanation of what 'strict' changes in rule severity, what the nested 'target' fingerprint/capturedAt fields are for (staleness validation), or what timeoutMs governs. 'On the active document' loosely gestures at 'target' but adds no operational meaning.

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 and resource: 'Executes native EasyEDA Pro schematic Electrical Rules Check (ERC) on the active document.' The word 'schematic' implicitly separates it from easyeda_run_drc for PCBs, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or easyeda_find_unconnected_pins/easyeda_verify_connections, which overlap with the 'unconnected pins' output.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-fabrication schematic check, and 'on the active document' hints at a precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance about when to prefer easyeda_verify_connections or easyeda_find_unconnected_pins instead.

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