autoroute_pcb

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

Discloses that the original board is never modified (aligning with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint), explains the intermediate steps, and mentions auto-download of Freerouting JAR. All annotations are reinforced and supplemented with useful procedural details.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, process, requirements, and parameter list. The Args section is slightly verbose but clear. No wasted sentences, but could be more compact by integrating parameter defaults into prose.

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?

Covers essential context: tool purpose, process, prerequisites (Java 17+, pcbnew, auto-download), and parameter defaults. Output schema exists, so return value details are not required. Missing minor details like exact output file naming or error handling, but overall sufficient for a complex tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only lists parameter names with defaults but provides no explanation of their semantics (e.g., what max_passes controls, how num_threads affects performance). This fails to add meaning beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it autoroutes PCB traces using Freerouting and outlines the process (export to DSN, run autorouter, import results). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., add_trace, fill_zones) by being the only autorouting tool, making 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?

Provides context on when to use (automated routing) and explicitly states the original board is never modified. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, though no alternative autorouter exists among siblings.

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