Run Fusion Electronics electrical rule checks on the schematic and return all findings, so you can catch design errors before routing or manufacturing.
Run Fusion's ERC on the schematic and return the findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that findings are returned, without describing format, scope (whole design vs current sheet), or whether it requires an open design.
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 with no filler; the action and the outcome both appear immediately and nothing is redundant.
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 parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits the operational context an agent needs — which design it acts on and whether open_design is a prerequisite — leaving a real gap for a zero-arg analyzer.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description has nothing to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 (Run) and resource (Fusion's ERC on the schematic) plus the outcome (return the findings). It is distinguishable from the sibling run_drc, which targets a different check domain, though it does not name that sibling as the contrast.
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 only implied: an agent can infer that you run ERC to validate electrical rules on a schematic, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. open_design first), and no mention of alternatives such as run_drc or review_schematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.