Run design rule check

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: a visible side effect (DRC panel opens/refreshes) and the limitation that only coarse counts are returned, with specific details only in the panel. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing the side effect and return behavior separately). No wasted words.

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?

While the description notes the visible side effect and coarse return, it omits parameter semantics entirely. Given that an output schema exists (from context), the return value limitation is described, but the tool's behavior regarding the 'rules' parameter is absent. Incomplete for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the two parameters (projectId and rules). The agent is left guessing what 'rules' array does and that projectId is required. This is a critical 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?

Clearly states it runs the native DRC, analog to clicking 'Check DRC', and specifies return of coarse per-severity counts. Distinguishes from siblings like easyeda_erc_run and easyeda_rule_check_summary by mentioning the interaction with EasyEDA Pro's DRC panel and the limited return data.

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?

Provides context by comparing to clicking 'Check DRC' and noting coarse returns, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over siblings such as easyeda_erc_run or easyeda_rule_check_summary. No exclusions or alternative guidance given.

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