route_differential_pair

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the offset calculation and that changes are single-undo-step. However, it does not describe failure modes, obstacles handling, or prerequisites like net existence or layer constraints.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states purpose with geometric detail, second adds behavioral note about undo. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Adequately covers core routing mechanics but lacks prerequisites (nets must exist on same layer?), error behavior, and how corners are handled. For a complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 0%. The description explains how points_mm, width_mm, and gap_mm relate to routing but does not explain the format of points_mm or constraints on layer and nets. It adds some meaning beyond schema titles but is incomplete.

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 'Route a differential pair' with specific implementation detail about P and N running parallel to centerline waypoints offset by half of width+gap. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'route_trace' which routes single traces.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., route_trace). The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or consider alternative tools.

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