eda_pcb_drc_get_net_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the return type (Promise<Array<Record<string, any>>>) and that it returns all net rules. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, performance characteristics, or error behavior.

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 (a signature and a one-liner) and front-loads the API call. However, it lacks structural elements like clear usage examples or separation of concerns. It is minimal but not excessive, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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, but the description does not mention prerequisites such as an open PCB document, nor does it clarify the data format beyond a generic record array. It also fails to differentiate from numerous DRC sibling tools, leaving an agent uncertain about when this is the right choice.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, both property descriptions are generic templates (e.g., 'JSON parameter array in official signature order') that apply to any tool. The description adds no clarification about what arguments this particular function expects. An agent would not know whether to pass anything in 'args' or how to structure it.

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 tool retrieves all net rules for the current PCB (获取网络规则 and returns 当前 PCB 的所有网络规则). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it is distinguishable from siblings like get_all_net_classes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related DRC getters.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine if this should be used instead of eda_pcb_drc_get_net_by_net_rules or other DRC retrieval tools.

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