Retrieve all net-to-net design rule check (DRC) rules from the active PCB. Use this to audit clearance or constraint violations between specific nets without parsing the entire DRC configuration.
pcb_Drc.getNetByNetRules() -> Promise<Record<string, any>> 获取网络-网络规则 returns: 当前 PCB 的所有网络-网络规则
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates this is a read-only-style getter returning all net-to-net rules for the current PCB, and includes the Promise<Record<string, any>> return type. However, it does not mention error behavior, prerequisites such as having a PCB open, or any 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 brief and front-loads the method signature and return intent. The Chinese phrase and the 'returns:' line are somewhat redundant, but the overall content is compact with no filler.
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?
This is a simple getter with no required parameters and no output schema, so a short description is acceptable. Still, the description is incomplete for an agent selecting among many DRC getters: it lacks a distinction from sibling tools and any detail about the returned record structure.
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%, and both parameters have generic descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as whether args must be provided or what the official signature order is for this particular API, so it does not exceed the schema 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 states the specific verb 'get' and resource 'net-by-net rules' twice, and scopes the result to the current PCB. It is clear enough to distinguish this from general net-rule getters like eda_pcb_drc_get_net_rules, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or explain the net-by-net distinction.
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 the many sibling DRC getters (get_net_rules, get_region_rules, get_all_rule_configurations). The description only says what it returns, not when it is the appropriate choice or when a sibling would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.