eda_pcb_drc_get_real_time_drc_status

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it exposes the Promise<boolean> signature and precisely states that real-time DRC stopped, not being in PCB, or fetch failure all return false. This gives the agent a clear behavioral contract, though it does not discuss side effects or error handling beyond the false result.

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 well-structured: signature, one-line purpose, version remark, and return contract. The essential information is front-loaded, and every line earns its place without 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?

For a simple status getter with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the critical operational details: the boolean meaning, the three false-producing conditions, and the minimum EDA version. It does not mention sibling alternatives, but that is more of a usage-guidance gap than a completeness gap.

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 descriptions cover both properties, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing the official signature as '()', clarifying that no positional arguments are expected despite the generic args array. WindowId semantics are left to the schema, which is already descriptive enough.

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 the verb and resource: "获取实时 DRC 检查状态" / getRealTimeDrcStatus. It also clarifies that it returns a boolean representing real-time DRC status. Though it does not explicitly name sibling tools, it is distinguishable from related start/stop/check DRC tools by the 'get status' wording.

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?

Usage context is only implied. The return note explains when the result is false (DRC stopped, not in PCB, or fetch failure), which gives some situational context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like eda_pcb_drc_start_real_time_drc, eda_pcb_drc_stop_real_time_drc, or eda_pcb_drc_check.

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