eda_pcb_drc_get_current_rule_configuration

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

The description discloses the return type Promise<Record<string, any> | undefined> and clearly states that undefined means retrieval failure, which is valuable behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the safety burden, and the get/获取 wording strongly implies a read-only operation without side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose and signature. The returns line partially repeats the main sentence, but the failure-sentinel note earns its place. Overall it is appropriately sized.

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 getter with no required parameters, the description gives the essential purpose and failure semantics. However, it lacks usage routing among DRC sibling tools and does not clarify that the method signature implies an empty args array, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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?

Both schema parameters (args, windowId) have full descriptions, so the schema covers their semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, including the important implication from the signature that getCurrentRuleConfiguration() takes no arguments and args should likely be empty. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '获取当前设计规则配置' (get current design rule configuration), and the API signature names the method. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_all_rule_configurations or get_current_rule_configuration_name, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling DRC configuration tools such as get_all_rule_configurations, get_rule_configuration, or get_current_rule_configuration_name. No contexts, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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