classify_drc_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the classification categories but doesn't disclose what the output looks like, whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description doesn't explain the classification logic or edge cases. For a tool with no annotations, this is a gap.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It lists the classification categories efficiently. 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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about the input format and classification behavior. It's adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, and the description only mentions 'KiCad DRC/ERC JSON' as input. The parameter 'json_text' is a string, but the description doesn't clarify expected format (e.g., raw JSON string, pretty-printed, etc.) or any constraints. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: classifying KiCad DRC/ERC JSON into one of four categories (clean, findings, malformed, unavailable). It uses a specific verb ('Classify') and resource ('KiCad DRC/ERC JSON'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the sibling names are about parsing/generating sexpr data, so the classification purpose is distinct enough.

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 when to use this tool: when you have KiCad DRC/ERC JSON and need a classification. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like parse_kicad_sexpr handle different formats, so the context is somewhat clear but not explicit.

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