route_differential_pair

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Write', implying a mutating action, but does not disclose side effects, such as whether existing routing is removed, whether constraints are applied globally or locally, or if any validation occurs. This is minimal for a write operation.

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, focused sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Write') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the constraints are used, what return value to expect (though output schema exists), or any relevant context like units or whether it affects the PCB layout. The tool appears to be a significant design action that merits more explanation.

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 the description adds no parameter details. It only hints at 'a pair of nets' corresponding to net_p and net_n, but does not explain layer, gap, width, or tolerance parameters. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Write' and the resource 'differential-pair routing constraints', with the target being 'a pair of nets'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_single_track (single-ended) or check/tune tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether nets need to be selected or if existing constraints are overwritten. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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