eda_pcb_drc_get_default_rule_configuration_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (string or undefined) and states that undefined indicates failure, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or whether it only works for new PCBs beyond the phrase '新建 PCB', which is ambiguous.

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 and includes a function signature line and a return-value line. It is not bloated, though the signature line may be redundant with the tool name.

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, the description explains the return value and failure case. However, it lacks context on when this applies (e.g., only for new PCBs) and how it differs from the current rule configuration getter. An agent might still be uncertain about when to use this over similar tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (args and windowId). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so it does not improve beyond the baseline.

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 that the tool retrieves the name of the default design rule configuration for a new PCB. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (default rule configuration name). While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_current_rule_configuration_name, the word 'default' differentiates it adequately.

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 alternatives such as get_current_rule_configuration_name or get_all_rule_configurations. The description only explains what it returns, not the context in which it should be preferred.

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