eda_sch_drc_check

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a Promise<boolean> return and that it checks DRC. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific editor state. For a DRC check, one might infer it is non-destructive, but this is not stated.

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 extremely short, containing a signature, a one-line Chinese statement, and a return line. While it is not verbose, it is so terse that it omits critical information. It is structured clearly but under-specified.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully explain behavior and prerequisites. It only states it returns a boolean for DRC pass/fail. It lacks parameter explanations, side-effect disclosure, and any context about the active schematic or window. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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 description includes a signature 'sch_Drc.check(strict: boolean, userInterface: boolean, includeVerboseError: false)' which names three boolean parameters and a default. However, it does not explain what 'strict', 'userInterface', or 'includeVerboseError' control. The input schema's args array is generic and does not elaborate, so the description only provides types, not semantics.

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 '检查 DRC' (check DRC) and the return type, making the tool's purpose clear. The tool name includes 'sch' to indicate schematic context, and the description adds that it returns a boolean for pass/fail. However, it does not go beyond the name to differentiate from other DRC tools like eda_pcb_drc_check.

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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., having a schematic open). The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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