Route Arc Trace

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

Annotations already indicate destructive/write behavior. The description adds one useful detail: 'Uses true PCB arc primitives when available,' hinting at a fallback behavior. However, it does not explain what happens when primitives are unavailable or what destructive effects may occur, leaving the agent partially informed.

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, action-first, with no redundant words. Every sentence provides useful information, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

While the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is minimal for a geometry-heavy tool with 6 parameters and nested objects. It fails to clarify the arc construction geometry (e.g., what 'mid' really means), fallback behavior, or collision/clearance implications. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description repeats start/mid/end but adds no additional context about units, net handling, or width. It neither improves nor harms beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Route a copper arc trace' and clearly defines the construction via start/mid/end points. This distinguishes it from generic route_trace and other routing tools by focusing on arc primitives.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like route_trace or route_pad_to_pad, nor does it provide exclusions. The 'defined by start/mid/end points' phrase implies a specific use case, but lacks clear guidance on alternatives.

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