run_erc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it is deterministic, every finding carries severity + source, and blocking/error issues gate BOM/CPL delivery. The gating consequence is meaningful information annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by concrete rule categories and the outcome of findings. It is efficient with little waste, though the middle enumeration is dense and could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to note that findings carry severity + source rather than returning raw data. Combined with the nested-object input and the safety annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it could say more about the return structure and its relationship to sibling validation tools.

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%, so both parameters (netlist, modules) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description refers to operating 'on a netlist' but adds no syntax, format, or meaning for the modules parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Run deterministic Electrical Rules Check (ERC) on a netlist') and enumerates the exact rule categories checked (floating nets, missing GND, unknown designators, etc.), which tells an agent precisely what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling validate_netlist, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative validate_netlist, which is the closest sibling in the list. The purpose implies the tool is run on a netlist for checking, but the agent is left to infer when to pick run_erc over validate_netlist or diff_netlists.

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