sch_run_drc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the action without explaining whether the operation is destructive, read-only, or what side effects occur. The behavioral traits beyond the action are absent.

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 (single sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices valuable details. It is not overly verbose, but the minimalism leaves gaps in understanding.

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 (2 boolean params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter behavior or return values, and it lacks contextual information about how DRC fits into the workflow.

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%, yet the description does not explain the two boolean parameters ('strict' and 'userInterface'). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'Design Rule Check (DRC) on the schematic,' making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'pcb_run_drc' (for PCB), though this differentiation is implicit from the tool name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pcb_run_drc' or other schematic tools. Context about prerequisites (e.g., open schematic) or when DRC should be run is missing.

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