run_erc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It merely states a 'profile' without explaining what this entails (e.g., whether it mutates the design, runs analyses, or just reports). This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 short, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. A single vague phrase is not conciseness; it's a tautological placeholder that fails to provide necessary information.

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 that there is an output schema and a complex domain (ERCs, connectivity, metadata), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool returns, what the inputs influence, or how it fits into the broader 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%, and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter beyond the schema's 'string or null'. It adds no meaning about what path should be, why it's optional, or how it affects the profile.

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 'Schematic connectivity and metadata profile' is vague and does not clearly state a specific action like 'runs an electrical rule check'. It uses a noun phrase without a clear verb+resource, and it does not distinguish from siblings such as run_connectivity_check or get_connectivity_graph.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions relative to other sibling tools like run_drc or run_connectivity_check.

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