pcb_drc_autofix

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-fixing but does not state that it modifies the design, what exactly is changed beyond silk-screen conflicts, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The promise of a before/after comparison is vague about its format and safety implications.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action (run DRC and auto-fix) and includes the current scope (silk-screen conflicts) and output (before/after comparison). It is concise with zero wasted words.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool that can alter the design, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format of the before/after comparison, whether the tool requires an open document, if it is idempotent, or what happens when other fixable issues exist beyond silk-screen conflicts. No output schema exists, so the description carries the load for expected results.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameter semantics. Per scoring guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the tool runs DRC and automatically fixes issues, specifically silk-screen conflicts, and returns a before/after comparison. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcb_run_drc by the auto-fix behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for automated DRC fixing but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pcb_run_drc (for manual run) or pcb_move_silkscreen/auto_silkscreen (for targeted fixes). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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