Run electrical rule check

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond stating it runs a check; it does not disclose safety implications, side effects, or confirm idempotency. 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?

The description is short at two sentences, but the second sentence is dense and could be clearer. Still, it is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 tool has two parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not shown). The description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the full context of using this tool.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the two parameters (checks, projectId) or their expected values, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 tool runs the native electrical rule check (ERC). It distinguishes from alternatives by mentioning that native counts are coarse and that inferred_floating_pins supplements them, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling easyeda_drc_run.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool by noting that native counts are coarse and that inferred_floating_pins is a supplement, and mentions that other categories still need the DRC panel. This implies when not to rely solely on this tool. However, it could be more explicit about when to prefer this tool over others.

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