extract_markers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the optional side effect that `include_crops` renders a PNG crop and gives the default crop window (20x20 um), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not state read-only/safety profile, permission requirements, or behavior on an unknown run_id.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the parameter notes are terse and each earn their place. The Args block is slightly formulaic but contains no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value description is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, all parameters, and the optional crop rendering. It would be fully complete with a note on what happens when the referenced run is missing or whether extraction is read-only.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all four parameters, gives the provenance of session_id (`open_layout`) and run_id (`run_drc_script`), and clarifies crop_size_um as an {x, y} micron window with a default. Only the exact units/format edge cases are left thin.

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 ('Return the violation markers') and scopes it to a run produced by the sibling `run_drc_script`. An agent can distinguish this from query_region, measure_geometry, or run_drc_script itself without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'from a `run_drc_script` run' implies the prerequisite that a DRC run must exist and that run_id/session_id come from `open_layout` and `run_drc_script`, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many siblings.

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