eda_run_drc

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral commitments beyond those annotations: results are boolean-only and the tool never fabricates issue details. This is meaningful transparency about output fidelity, though it doesn't discuss failure modes or return structure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that earns each phrase: 'native DRC' specifies the operation, while 'preserves boolean-only results' and 'never invents issue details' add critical behavioral constraints. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and a nested required target object, the description is too thin to fully guide invocation. It hints at boolean-only results but does not explain how to form target, what domain values imply, or how this tool fits among the sibling tools. Annotations cover safety but not invocation context.

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 provides no parameter information. It does not explain the target object, how windowId/projectId/documentId relate, or how the domain enum affects the DRC run. The schema gives names and requirements, but the description adds nothing to help the agent construct correct arguments.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Run native DRC'. It adds specific behavioral scope by noting it 'preserves boolean-only results and never invents issue details', which helps distinguish it from route-checking or workflow tools. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_check_route, eda_workflow, or pcb_get_state. It implies use when a native DRC is needed, but provides no context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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