pcb_get_design_rules

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 safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about scope, permissions, or return shape — so it neither strengthens nor contradicts the structured data.

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 the verb and resource first and a parenthetical example set that earns its place. No waste.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The only mild gap is that "(clearance, width, etc.)" is vague about what the returned rule configuration actually contains, but no safety or routing information an agent needs is missing.

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 100%, so the document and instance_id parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection meaning for either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Get the current PCB design rule configuration") and illustrates the content with examples (clearance, width). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby siblings pcb_get_net_rules or pcb_manage_rule_config, so an agent cannot tell which rules tool to reach for from the text alone.

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, no exclusions, and no named alternative despite multiple overlapping siblings (pcb_get_net_rules for net-specific rules, pcb_manage_* for modification). The description offers implied usage only via its content examples.

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