run_erc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful details such as the temporary report behavior and that save_first saves the schematic before checking, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires an open KiCad instance, or what side effects occur beyond the optional save.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides a compact, structured Args block. Every sentence and parameter note adds information 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers all parameters despite zero schema description coverage. It is nearly complete for invocation, though it omits usage context and full behavioral disclosure because annotations are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all three parameters with meaningful semantics: output_path as an optional .json report path with a temp-file fallback, schematic_path as an explicit .kicad_sch path defaulting to the open project's, and save_first as saving before checking.

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 states a specific verb (Run), a specific check type (Electrical Rule Check), the target resource (open schematic), and the outcome (summarise results). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling run_drc, which operates on the board, without requiring the schema.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_drc, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It only implies usage by describing the operation on the open schematic.

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