Copy Routing Pattern

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the offset is calculated automatically from the position difference between the first source and target components, and it copies both traces and vias. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful information beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds a key detail (automatic offset) and a use case. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and safety annotations. The description covers purpose, mechanism, and use case, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It could mention overwrite behavior on target routing, but the annotations and schema already cover the main safety context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to sourceRefs/targetRefs by explaining the automatic offset calculation based on the first source/target pair, which clarifies how parameters relate. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 action: 'Copy routing pattern (traces and vias) from a group of source components to a matching group of target components.' It specifies the resource (routing pattern) and the mechanism (copying between component groups), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_trace or add_via.

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 provides a clear context for use: 'Useful for replicating routing between identical circuit blocks.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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