Run offline rules and Fusion ERC to flag unconnected power pins, single-pin nets, output conflicts, undriven nets, missing JLC codes, and empty values.
Schematic review: offline rules (unconnected power pins, single-pin nets, output conflicts, undriven nets, missing JLC codes, empty values) plus Fusion's ERC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_erc | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the analysis scope (which rule categories run), which is real value beyond annotations, but says nothing about result severity, whether findings block anything, or how results are surfaced. Adequate, not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the tool's identity and then enumerates the checks. No filler, though the parenthetical rule list makes it dense.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at what a review returns (violation list, counts, severity) and it does not. Combined with the silent parameter, the definition is usable but leaves the agent guessing about results and the ERC toggle.
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 parameter include_erc has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it. It never names the parameter, but by stating the tool runs 'offline rules ... plus Fusion's ERC' it lets the agent infer that ERC is an optional bundled stage matching the include_erc boolean. Partial compensation only; the toggle semantics remain implicit.
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 (review) and resource (schematic), and enumerates the actual rule classes it runs (unconnected power pins, single-pin nets, output conflicts, undriven nets, missing JLC codes, empty values), which is far more informative than a bare 'review schematic'. It partially distinguishes itself from the sibling run_erc by framing itself as offline rules PLUS Fusion ERC, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.
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?
Usage is implied (run a review before fabrication/export) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling run_erc. An agent has to infer whether this supersedes run_erc or complements it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.