checks

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 discloses that the result includes counts by severity and a capped detail list, and that filtering by severity expands a class. However, it does not mention limits, error behavior, or nondestructive guarantees, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences—and immediately states the core action ('Run ERC (schematic) or DRC (board)'). No extraneous words, and key details are front-loaded.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters with 0 required, the description provides a basic understanding of returns (counts, capped list) and filter behavior. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination (page parameter), and project scoping, leaving some 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'type' parameter (ERC/DRC) and 'severity' filter, but does not address 'page' or 'project' parameters. Thus, only half the parameters are semantically clarified.

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 it runs ERC (schematic) or DRC (board) checks and returns counts by severity with a capped detail list. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource (ERC/DRC checks), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like board_overview or find.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only implies usage for running checks, but lacks exclusions or context for tool selection.

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