run_drc

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

The description discloses that it runs kicad-cli and returns a report, but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid paths, or the report's format. Since no annotations are provided, these behavioral traits are under-specified.

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 containing all key information: action, target, tool, and result. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks details about the report's content or format and the side effects of running DRC. It does not mention error behavior or whether any files are created or modified.

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 only provides a parameter named 'path' with no description. The description adds crucial meaning by indicating the path must point to a .kicad_pcb file, which is essential for correct invocation. However, it doesn't detail path constraints like absolute vs relative or validation behavior.

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 uses the specific verb 'Run' with resource 'Design Rules Check' and specifies the target file type (.kicad_pcb) and method (via kicad-cli). It clearly distinguishes from sibling run_erc, which covers electrical rules checking, and other schematic/PCB tools.

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 use for PCB design rule checking on .kicad_pcb files, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like run_erc or provide exclusions. The context of PCB file type provides some guidance, but no direct comparison is made.

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