erc

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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are cached until the schematic changes, the output shape depends on `type`, and `severity` accepts only `error` or `warning`. This is meaningful added context rather than repetition of 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, front-loaded, and free of filler. The conditional structure ('Without type... With type...') and the severity definition are easy to scan and each part adds value.

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 an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the main no-argument call path and the key `type` switch well. However, it is not fully self-sufficient for less common invocations because `limit`, `include_excluded`, and `path` semantics are unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains `type` and `severity`, but `path`, `limit`, and `include_excluded` are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults. For a tool with five parameters, this is a material gap.

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 action ('Run ERC') and resource ('the schematic'), then distinguishes the two output modes based on the `type` parameter. It also identifies the valid severity values, which helps an agent recognize what the tool does at a glance.

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?

It gives conditional invocation guidance for `type` and notes the caching behavior, so an agent knows the basic call pattern. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer ERC over sibling tools like `drc` or when not to use it, leaving cross-tool selection implied rather than stated.

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