route_import_ses

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

The annotation openWorldHint signals potential side effects, and the description adds that the tool stages a file and explains the import step. However, it does not disclose whether staging overwrites the file, what happens to existing files, or any preconditions, leaving the exact behavior partially opaque.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core actions ('Stage... and explain...') with no filler or redundant repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter and no required fields, the description provides minimal viable coverage of the tool's purpose. However, it omits workflow context, such as how this fits into the broader routing/import process, and leaves ambiguity about the parameter semantics, making it only partially complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the 'ses_path' parameter. It indicates the path relates to a Specctra SES file, but it is ambiguous whether this is the source file to stage or the destination location. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs 'Stage' and 'explain' and a specific resource (Specctra SES file), explicitly mentioning the KiCad import step. This distinguishes it from sibling routing tools like route_export_dsn, which export DSN files, and route_autoroute_freerouting.

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 implies a workflow placement ('explain the KiCad import step') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, such as when a SES file is ready for import or if other import methods should be considered.

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