run_drc

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context, such as what happens when save_report is true, whether it changes the board, or how results are returned. It simply restates the tool's name without disclosing side effects or output behavior.

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, direct sentence that is entirely relevant and front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing exists, making it maximally concise.

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 simplicity (one optional boolean parameter) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any indication of when to use the tool, how the save_report parameter behaves, or what the output represents, leaving gaps in context. It is complete enough for a straightforward invocation but not fully self-sufficient.

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 mention the save_report parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema's name and default convey. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack 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 tool's function: running PCB design rule checks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drc_list_rules (which lists rules) and run_erc (which runs electrical rule checks), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drc_list_rules or validate_design. It does not mention prerequisites, whether it runs all checks or only enabled ones, or when to prefer this over other DRC-related tools.

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