route_single_track

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

Annotations are empty, and the description provides no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether existing tracks are modified, how the new segment connects to the board, what defaults are used (e.g., layer F_Cu, width 0.25mm), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 sentence with no extraneous words, making it concise. However, given the tool's seven parameters, it is arguably under-specified, though this is better addressed in other dimensions. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the action.

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 routing tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain expected inputs, coordinate system, layer defaults, or how the routed segment is returned. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 fails to explain any of the 7 parameters. It does not mention that x1/y1 and x2/y2 define start/end points in millimeters, or the meaning of layer, net_name, and width_mm. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 identifies the action (route) and the specific resource (a single straight track segment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like route_from_pad_to_pad or route_differential_pair. The qualifiers 'single straight' and 'segment' provide scope.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning scenarios, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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