run_erc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that violations are returned as results rather than failures, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid file paths, or any side effects. It adds some transparency but is not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence gives the verb, resource, and method; the second clarifies a critical interpretation detail. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple check tool with only two parameters, the description covers the main action and one key behavioral note. However, it lacks details about the output format, what the report contains, and especially the meaning of severity_all. With no output schema and no annotations, notable gaps remain, though the tool is not highly complex.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description explains neither parameter directly. 'path' is only implied as the schematic file location via 'on a schematic', while 'severity_all' is completely unaddressed. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess the meaning of the boolean parameter.

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 an Electrical Rules Check on a schematic via kicad-cli and returns the report. The specific verb+resource and 'Electrical Rules Check' distinguish it from sibling run_drc (Design Rules Check) and other schematic tools. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 electrical rule checking but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like run_drc or state when not to use it. The note about non-zero violation count provides output interpretation guidance but not usage timing. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, though the purpose is clear enough for inference.

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