pcb_run_drc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and does not reveal whether DRC modifies the design, what results are returned, whether it is asynchronous, or any side effects. It is not misleading but is minimal.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant content.

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?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not explain the output or return format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It also omits potential side effects, though the operation appears to be a check.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description has no parameter-explanation burden, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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, '运行 PCB 设计规则检查 (DRC)', states a specific verb ('run') and resource ('PCB design rule check'), expanding the acronym. The explicit 'PCB' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling sch_run_drc and other PCB operations.

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 by the 'PCB' prefix and the DRC operation, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of the schematic alternative sch_run_drc. There are no exclusions or contrasting sibling references.

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