schematic_run_drc

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does disclose a behavioral nuance: 'EasyEDA may return only aggregate counts in some versions.' However, it omits whether the operation is destructive, requires special permissions, or has side effects. Partially transparent.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a valuable caveat. Well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a notable version-specific behavior. However, it lacks details about what DRC checks are performed, expected output format, and any prerequisites like having a valid schematic page. Adequate but could be more complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the sole parameter 'pageUuid' beyond what the schema's name and type imply. The description adds no semantic value to help the agent construct correct input.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Run strict schematic DRC') and resource ('on a page'). The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like schematic_create_texts or schematic_delete_page.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or reference other tools. The caveat about aggregate counts is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline.

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