drc_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's behavior: it runs DRC rules, reports violations per rule, and limits output via max_report. It details five rule types with their dictionaries. It does not mention error handling or performance, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 structured with a summary sentence followed by detailed rule specifications. It is somewhat lengthy but every part provides necessary information. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and easy to follow.

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 no annotations but a known output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and rule types comprehensively. It does not detail return format (likely covered by output schema) or error states, but for a DRC check tool it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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. It thoroughly explains the 'rules' parameter with example dicts and meanings for all five rule types. It clarifies 'path' (optional, current session if absent) and 'max_report' (violation limit). 'top_cell' is not explained beyond its name, but the overall parameter explanation adds significant value.

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 starts with 'Run simple DRC rules against a layout and report violations,' which clearly states the action (run DRC rules), target (layout), and output (violations). It is distinct from sibling tools that deal with editing or inspecting GDS files, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description mentions it operates on a given path or the current session, providing context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context of DRC checking versus other layout operations is clear enough.

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