run_board_drc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two important traits: the tool takes fixed arguments (no customization) and returns a privacy-preserving summary (likely redacting sensitive data). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the board, or what kind of external dependencies (e.g., KiCad installation) are required.

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 with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: 'fixed-argument', 'KiCad DRC', and 'privacy-preserving summary' all add meaningful detail without redundancy.

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 only one parameter and an output schema, so the return value is covered. The description is enough to understand the tool's core purpose, but it leaves the parameter semantics unexplained and provides no usage guidance. For a simple tool this is acceptable, yet the missing path semantics and lack of any behavioral context beyond the summary make it incomplete.

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?

The schema lists a single required 'path' parameter with no description. The tool description does not explain what 'path' refers to (board file, project directory, etc.), and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name gives a weak hint, but the description fails to add the necessary context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('KiCad DRC'), and adds scope with 'fixed-argument' and 'privacy-preserving summary'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like inspect_board or validate_candidate, since no other sibling mentions DRC.

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?

Usage is implied: run this when you need a KiCad DRC check. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'fixed-argument' hints that this is a standard/unconfigurable DRC run, but it does not say when not to use it.

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