sch_run_drc

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the DRC check is read-only, whether it modifies the schematic, or what side effects might occur. The description carries the full burden and does not meet it.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise in word count but under-specified for a DRC tool. It lacks structure and necessary details, making it less 'appropriately sized' than a balanced description.

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 DRC tool, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what DRC does, what the 'strict' mode entails, what the output or results are, or whether the operation has side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 single parameter 'strict' is described in the schema as '是否严格模式' (strict mode). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 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 '运行原理图 DRC' clearly states the action (run) and resource (schematic DRC), and the 'sch' prefix distinguishes it from the sibling pcb_run_drc. However, it is terse and does not elaborate on the scope or purpose beyond the literal translation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_run_drc. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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