get_design_rules

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context: it reads from Fusion's own V2 rules and emits a warning when defaults are still in use, including an example (40 mil edge clearance). It does not cover return format or error behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and then add the warning behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 the tool is read-only, parameterless, and has no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what rules are returned and the warning condition. It could be more complete by clarifying the return shape or how it relates to list_design_rules.

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?

With zero parameters, there are no parameter semantics to clarify, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none exist.

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+resource: read key design rules of the open board, with example rule types (clearances, minimum width/drill, edge clearance, via restring). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_design_rules.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It describes the content and a warning behavior, but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives like list_design_rules or run_drc.

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