easyeda_check_drc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two traits beyond that: the check runs without any dialog/interaction ('无弹窗'), and on failure the failures are retained rather than auto-remediated ('passed=false 保留失败'), which tells the agent the result is advisory and non-destructive.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with the non-interactive and failure-retention clauses appended. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 output schema exists, so return-value shape (including passed) need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is usage context — when in a workflow to invoke it and what to do with a failed result — leaving the definition adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so both session and document_uuid are already fully documented, including the inspect_project prerequisite and the no-auto-page-switch caveat. The phrase '指定活动' only loosely reinforces that the target must be the active document, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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: runs a strict DRC boolean check against the specified active schematic/PCB. This is unambiguous and unique among the sibling tools (auto_layout, auto_route, export_manufacturing), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 run DRC versus other verification or export steps, nor any prerequisite chain stated in the description (the 'get UUID via inspect_project first' instruction lives only in the schema). The agent must infer timing and ordering.

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