Run semantic ERC validation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds context about the types of rules checked, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions or latency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and specific detection categories without any 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not indicate the optional nature of 'devices', 'interfaces', and 'projectId', and relies entirely on the output schema to explain return values, making the description insufficient for proper agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the structure of required 'nets' parameter or optional parameters (devices, interfaces, projectId). It mentions 'netlist' generically but fails to detail the required schema fields, leaving the agent to infer from the schema itself.

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 semantic electrical-rule validation (verb+resource) and lists specific detection outcomes (output contention, floating inputs, etc.), distinguishing it from basic ERC tools like easyeda_erc_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 implies usage when a netlist with pin electrical types is available and semantic checks are needed, but it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mentions of alternatives like easyeda_erc_run.

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