eda_pcb_drc_get_current_rule_configuration_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the return type is 'Promise<string | undefined>' and explains that 'undefined' indicates failure to retrieve the configuration name. This adds some transparency about failure semantics. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether it requires an active PCB document, whether it reads from the current window context, or any side effects (likely none for a getter). The description partially compensates for the lack of annotations 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?

The description is concise, consisting of a signature line and two short sentences. It is not overly verbose. However, the signature line 'pcb_Drc.getCurrentRuleConfigurationName() -> Promise<string | undefined>' is redundant with the tool name and does not add value for an agent. The key information (purpose and return value) is front-loaded after the signature, so overall structure is acceptable.

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 output schema, the description covers the return type and failure semantics. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool instead of related DRC configuration tools, and it does not mention any prerequisites or assumptions about the current document state. The absence of usage guidance and behavioral details beyond the return value makes it minimally adequate for an agent to call correctly, but not fully 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 coverage is 100% as both 'args' and 'windowId' are described in the schema. The description does not add any information about these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The signature in the description shows no parameters, which might be confusing given the schema includes 'args' and 'windowId'. Since the schema already documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 '获取当前设计规则配置名称' (Get current design rule configuration name), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (current design rule configuration name). It also includes the API signature which reinforces the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'eda_pcb_drc_get_current_rule_configuration' which likely returns the full configuration object, whereas this one returns only the name. The name itself is descriptive, so purpose clarity is good but not exceptional.

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. It does not mention that this is for retrieving just the name, while other tools like 'get_current_rule_configuration' or 'get_all_rule_configurations' serve different purposes. No exclusions or context are given, 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.