run_drc_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it documents the deck contract ($input_path/$report_path variables, must write to $report_path), a hard environment prerequisite (klayout executable on PATH or KLAYOUT_BIN), and the return payload (run_id + marker counts). It omits failure/timeout behavior and whether the run mutates session state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the deck contract, then follow-up and prerequisites, with an Args list at the end. Efficient and well-organized, though the contract paragraph could be tightened slightly.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still usefully names run_id and marker counts, and it covers the environment prerequisite and downstream handoff. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only error-handling behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: session_id is tied to open_layout, script_path is specified as an absolute path, script_type is constrained to ruby only, and params is explained with the -rd name=value forwarding syntax. This is meaningful added meaning beyond the bare schema.

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+resource+mode: 'Run a KLayout DRC deck in batch mode against the session layout.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like extract_markers, which it explicitly names as a downstream step rather than a competing choice.

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?

Establishes context (batch DRC against an open session) and routes the agent to extract_markers via run_id for marker locations. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer interactive/geometry queries over a full deck run), so it stops short of a 5.

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