run_drc

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It provides no details about what the tool does, what inputs are expected, whether it performs destructive operations, or what the output looks like. The description is essentially a noun phrase with no behavioral disclosure.

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 very short but lacks essential information, making it under-specified rather than concise. While it is a single phrase, it omits critical details such as the verb and parameter context. This is closer to 'Process' (score 2) than to a well-structured, concise description.

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?

The tool is run_drc with no annotations and a single undocumented parameter. The description provides no context about when to run DRC, what the path argument refers to, or what the output schema contains. Even though an output schema exists, the description is too incomplete to help an agent select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'path' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. With only 0% coverage, the description completely fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 'PCB placement, connectivity and clearance profile' lacks a clear verb, making it ambiguous whether the tool performs a check or returns a profile. It names three design aspects but does not explicitly state that it runs a DRC, so it is not tautological but is still vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like run_connectivity_check or run_component_clearance_check.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar checks (e.g., run_connectivity_check, run_component_clearance_check), the description offers no context for selection. This is a complete absence of usage guidance, not misinformation.

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