route_tune_length

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that the tool is mutating ('write') and that it reports a value ('report the current delta'), but it does not explain side effects, whether existing rules are overwritten, or what the delta precisely represents. Key behavioral details such as reversibility, error conditions, or whether the tool modifies the board are absent. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool description and front-loads the essential 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for a tool with four parameters and no annotation support. It does not explain what a 'length-tuning rule' entails, how tolerance and meander amplitude influence the operation, or what 'current delta' means in practice. Given the complexity and the lack of schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It provides only a high-level summary without enough operational context.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. However, the description does not mention any of the four parameters (net_name, target_mm, tolerance_mm, meander_amplitude_mm) or how they relate to the described behavior. It only generically refers to 'a net,' providing no meaning for target tolerance or meander amplitude. This is a complete failure to enhance parameter understanding.

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 function: writing a length-tuning rule and reporting the current delta for a net. It uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('length-tuning rule'), and the outcome ('report the current delta') is explicit. While it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like tune_track_length or route_tune_time_domain, the phrasing conveys a distinct action (setting a rule rather than physically tuning a track).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusionary conditions. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer intended usage from the description alone. No alternatives are named, and there is no hint of when this tool is preferred over related tools such as tune_track_length or route_create_tuning_profile.

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