eda_pcb_drc_get_rule_configuration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the return value is `undefined` when the configuration does not exist and shows the return type as `Record<string, any>`. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it depends on an active PCB document, or any failure behavior beyond the undefined case.

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 directly useful: a signature line, a one-line Chinese description, and a return explanation. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 covers the essential behavior and undefined return case. However, given the large sibling set of DRC configuration tools, it lacks routing context and does not explain where configuration names come from or whether a selected PCB document is required.

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?

The input schema only provides a generic `args` array and `windowId`, but the description's function signature reveals the actual parameter name (`configurationName`) and type (`string`), which meaningfully supplements the schema. It still lacks examples or possible values for configurationName, but it is enough for an agent to construct a call.

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: '获取指定设计规则配置' (get the specified design rule configuration) via a named API signature. It identifies the input as configurationName and the return type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the closely related sibling tools like get_all_rule_configurations or get_current_rule_configuration.

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 its many DRC configuration siblings, such as get_all_rule_configurations or get_current_rule_configuration. The description also fails to mention whether the configurationName must refer to an existing named configuration or how to discover valid names, and windowId behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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