add_trace

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

Annotations are all false, so no safety signals are provided. The description adds the detail that pcb_path is optional and falls back to a configured default, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation modifies the file in place, requires an existing board, or performs any DRC checks. Side effects and prerequisites remain unspecified.

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 concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clearly formatted Args list. Every parameter is explained without extraneous text. The structure is scannable and 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?

The description covers all 8 parameters and the core purpose, but it lacks some context: coordinate units are not specified, and there is no mention of what happens if the pcb_path is invalid or whether the operation is undoable. Given the tool's complexity, the description is reasonably complete but leaves a few important 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?

The schema provides only names and defaults with no descriptions, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains each parameter: coordinates as start/end points, width in mm, layer with examples, net as number, and pcb_path with optionality guidance. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Add a trace segment between two points,' which clearly identifies the verb (add), resource (trace segment), and scope (between two points). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_via or add_pcb_line. The parameter list reinforces the purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_pcb_line or add_via. There is no mention of scenarios where add_trace is appropriate or inappropriate, and no reference to sibling tools. The only hint is the parameter list, which implies PCB routing, but no explicit 'use when' guidance is given.

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