run_drc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the return type ('normalized findings') but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the board, requires specific permissions, or how findings are structured. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and 8 words. It front-loads the verb and noun. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Score reflects that while non-wasteful, it is too short to convey necessary details.

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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should cover basic context like output format or preconditions. It only mentions 'normalized findings' without elaboration. The description is incomplete for an AI to use effectively.

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 single parameter 'project' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on what value is expected (e.g., project name, ID, path). The tool description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, making it impossible for an AI to determine correct input.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Run Design Rules Check') and the target resource ('the board') with the result ('return normalized findings'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'run_erc' which operates on schematic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'run_erc' should be used for schematic ERC, or that DRC should be run before export. The description lacks any context or prerequisites.

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