autoroute_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It reveals that the tool runs as a background task returning a task_id, and lists required dependencies. However, it does not disclose safety profile (e.g., whether it overwrites existing routes, or if it's destructive) or the full lifecycle of the background task. The async nature is stated, but side effects are unclear.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary text. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return value. Each subsequent sentence adds essential context (prerequisites, KiCad version limitation). Every phrase earns its place.

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's two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input requirement (dsn_path), the external tool dependency, and a critical limitation. However, it omits explanation of the optional output_ses parameter and how to interpret the task_id (e.g., polling get_task_status). The completeness is high for a simple tool but slightly lacking in optional parameter detail.

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. It explains 'dsn_path' implicitly as the input file but does not elaborate on 'output_ses' (its purpose, format, or consequences of omission). The optional parameter is left unexplained, reducing interpretability for agents. Only partial parameter semantics are provided.

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 action ('Autoroute a Specctra .dsn') and resource (board routing via DSN file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'route_trace' and 'route_differential_pair' by specifying batch autorouting with Freerouting. The verb+resource+context uniquely identifies the tool's role.

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 explicit prerequisites (KICAD_MCP_FREEROUTING_JAR and Java) and a critical usage limitation (KiCad 9 cannot export DSN headlessly, requiring GUI export). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manual routing tools or other autorouting methods. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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