pcb_run_drc

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that DRC will be run; it does not mention whether this is read-only, what happens when violations are found, what output is produced, or whether the design is modified.

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 concise sentence that is immediately clear and contains no filler or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool, the minimal description is workable, but the lack of annotations and output schema leaves meaningful gaps: the agent is not told what DRC results look like or whether the tool has side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no gaps to compensate for.

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)' clearly states a specific action (run) on a specific resource (PCB DRC). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pcb_drc_autofix and sch_run_drc by explicitly naming DRC as the task.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_drc_autofix, pcb_component_clearance_check, or sch_run_drc, leaving the agent without decision support.

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