List PCB design rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description adds return format (JSON with short descriptors) and prerequisite that an active/focused PCB must exist in Altium, both useful beyond annotations.

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?

Five labeled segments (Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites) each one line. Highly structured, front-loaded, 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, return type, and prerequisite. The only missing detail is the exact JSON shape of rule descriptors, but that is not critical for correct invocation given no parameters.

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 has no parameters (100% coverage with zero fields). Description explicitly states 'Parameters: None' and clarifies that the tool operates on the active board, removing ambiguity about how the target board is specified.

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 'List PCB design rules from the active board' with a specific verb and resource. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pcb_layers and get_all_nets.

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?

Explicitly states 'When to use: DRC-related questions, clearance/copper rules review.' Provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so not a 5.

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