Route Pad To Pad

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

Description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by revealing the automatic via insertion at the midpoint when pads are on different layers, and the automatic net detection. This is a non-obvious behavioral trait that helps the agent predict side effects.

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, front-loaded with the tool's status and core function, and every sentence adds value. The critical via behavior and the usage rule against route_trace are both included without wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers the essential workflow (pad lookup, net detection, via insertion) and explicitly names the alternative. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

While the schema provides complete parameter descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds contextual meaning by explaining that 'fromRef/toRef' are named component pads, that 'net' is auto-detected but can be overridden, and that 'layer' relates to differences in copper layers triggering via insertion. This enriches the parameters beyond raw schema definitions.

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 is the preferred tool for pad-to-pad routing, with a specific verb ('routing') and resource ('pads'), and distinguishes itself from route_trace by name. It also explains the automatic via insertion behavior, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of route_trace when routing between named component pads, providing a clear alternative and when-to-use guidance. It also explains the critical via-insertion condition, giving the agent situational context.

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