Estimate Airwire Lengths

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it estimates lengths 'by net', which is useful scoping context, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like maxPadsPerNet effects or output structure. This is a minimal addition over annotations.

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, front-loaded with the alias relationship, and every word adds value. There is no wasted prose or 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context: it doesn't explain maxPadsPerNet semantics, when to use this versus the original get_ratsnest, or any practical examples. For a two-parameter tool, it leaves the agent under-informed about the second parameter.

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. It only hints at the 'nets' parameter via 'by net', but it does not explain maxPadsPerNet at all. This is insufficient for the two parameters.

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 tool is an alias for get_ratsnest and specifies it estimates airwire segments and lengths by net. This gives a specific verb (estimate), resource (airwire lengths), and scope (by net), making the purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 implies usage by identifying the tool as an alias for get_ratsnest, which tells the agent it behaves identically to that sibling. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond that, nor does it explain any distinctions from get_ratsnest.

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