route_trace

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Multi-segment, single undo step,' which is useful. However, it omits other behaviors like collision checking, validity of waypoints, or required connections. This is decent but not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action ('Route a trace along...'), followed by key behavioral info. Every word 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core function and one behavioral feature but lacks detailed input format guidance and output description. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'points_mm' as waypoints and 'net' as optional, but does not clarify units for 'width_mm', layer naming conventions, or precise format for points (expected as array of [x,y] pairs). Adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 routes a trace using waypoints (x,y mm) on a layer, optionally on a net. It specifies 'Multi-segment, single undo step,' which adds clarity. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'trace_net' or 'route_differential_pair.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'trace_net' or 'route_differential_pair.' The description implies it's for manual waypoint-based routing, but does not state when not to use it or provide context for choosing among sibling tools.

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