Get rule check summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the summary aggregates both design (DRC) and electrical (ERC) results, expanding scope beyond a single check. It stops short of stating prerequisites (must a check be run first?) or freshness of the results.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier ('design and electrical') is placed where it matters and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and the parameter list is tiny. What remains missing is the operational context: whether this reads cached results or requires a prior drc_run/erc_run, and how it differs from those sibling tools. That omission keeps it at minimum-viable.

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% for the single required projectId, so the schema itself says nothing about it. The phrase 'for the project' hints that projectId identifies the target project, providing marginal semantics, but no ID format or source is given. With only one parameter and output schema present, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('summary of all design and electrical rule check results') and scope ('for the project') make the operation unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many rule-check siblings (easyeda_drc_run, easyeda_erc_run, easyeda_pcb_constraint_report), leaving an agent to guess whether this reads existing results or triggers a check.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With five-plus rule-check-related siblings, the absence of any routing information is a notable gap; the agent gets no signal about whether checks must be run first via drc_run/erc_run.

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