route_export_dsn

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

The description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it writes a file to disk, overwrites existing files, or modifies project state. The only annotation, openWorldHint: true, hints at external side effects, but the description itself adds no context about those 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?

It is concise at one sentence, but the brevity sacrifices clarity—'stage' is left undefined and no supporting context is provided. It's under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

As a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, it could be adequately described in a few sentences. However, the current description leaves the exact action ambiguous, the relation to routing flow unexplained, and the role of the output_path parameter unaddressed, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

The single parameter output_path has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it. The parameter name and default provide some self-explanatory meaning, but the description adds no additional semantics about path handling, format, or overwrite behavior.

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 names a specific resource (Specctra DSN file for FreeRouting) and uses 'Stage' as the verb, but 'stage' is ambiguous and doesn't clearly explain what the tool accomplishes. It also doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like route_autoroute_freerouting, which may also involve DSN files.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's a precursor to running route_autoroute_freerouting or that it should be used before other routing steps.

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