drc

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

The description discloses an important non-obvious behavior: results are cached until the board changes, which goes beyond the `readOnlyHint` and `idempotentHint` annotations. It also clarifies output mode differences and the effect of `parity=true`, adding valuable context without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise conditional details. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or 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?

The core behavior, caching, and key parameter effects are covered, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the lack of explanation for `path`, `limit`, and `include_excluded` leaves the definition incomplete for full autonomous invocation.

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 provides semantics for `type`, `severity`, and `parity`, but the input schema has 0% description coverage and the remaining parameters (`path`, `limit`, `include_excluded`) are left unexplained. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves several parameters ambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as 'Run DRC' and specifies the output behavior: counts per violation type without `type`, individual findings with positions when `type` is provided. This makes the purpose understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like `erc`, so it falls short of a full 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?

The description gives clear context on how to use the tool: without `type` for counts, with `type` for findings, and with `parity=true` to check against the schematic. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose `drc` over alternative tools such as `erc`, so usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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