route_autoroute_freerouting

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

The description mentions running an external tool and staging an SES session, but it does not disclose side effects beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not say what files are overwritten, whether Docker is required, or what 'staging' involves. Given only destructiveHint=true, the description carries too much burden and fails to explain the actual runtime behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the workflow context, prerequisites, or potential impacts, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool safely.

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% and there are 7 parameters. The description provides no information about dsn_path, ses_path, max_passes, use_docker, thread_count, freerouting_jar_path, or net_classes_to_ignore. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names/defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Run FreeRouting on a Specctra DSN file and stage the resulting SES session.' This distinguishes it from sibling route tools like route_single_track or route_export_dsn by naming the external autorouter and the DSN-to-SES workflow.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: it is for running FreeRouting on a DSN file. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the DSN/SES paths.

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