sch_run_drc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'run schematic DRC' and provides no insight into whether the operation is read-only, what checks are performed, how results are returned, or how strict mode affects behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 compact phrase with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action, though its brevity leaves behavioral details to other dimensions; that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness flaw.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer the operation and see the strict parameter in the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks any indication of return format, side effects, or what strict mode actually changes, leaving useful context missing.

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 schema already documents the only parameter strict with the description '是否严格模式' (whether strict mode). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('运行原理图 DRC' = run schematic DRC) on a clear resource, and the 'schematic' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling pcb_run_drc. The name is expanded into an unambiguous, human-readable operation.

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 implies usage: run DRC against a schematic rather than a PCB, especially given the sibling pcb_run_drc. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites such as having an open schematic document.

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