list_design_rules

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

The description states that copy_to 'copies the files into a folder', which is a filesystem write operation. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, meaning the tool does not modify its environment; this is a direct contradiction. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations scores 1 here.

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 paragraph is dense but front-loads the resource description and then explains how to use the files and what copy_to does. The provenance aside about gen_jlc_stackups.py is extra but minor; overall the information is relevant and not repetitive.

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 one optional parameter, the description covers what the tool provides (shipped rule files and their contents), how to use them in Fusion, and what copy_to does. It stops short of explicitly stating the return format (e.g., a list of file paths), but that is a minor omission for a simple listing tool.

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?

The single optional copy_to parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It provides exactly that: 'copy_to copies the files into a folder you can reach from Fusion's file dialog (e.g. Downloads),' clarifying the parameter's purpose and giving a concrete example.

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 identifies the specific resource (shipped .edru and .estackup files) and enumerates their contents (copper layers, board thickness, dielectrics, key clearances), so an agent can tell what the tool is about. It does not name the sibling get_design_rules or explicitly state 'list', but the scope is clear enough.

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 explains that Fusion cannot load rules from a script and that .edru files must be loaded via the DRC dialog while .estackup files go through the Layer Stack Manager, which gives practical context. However, it does not say when to choose list_design_rules over get_design_rules or other sibling tools, leaving the alternative implicit.

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