pcb_create_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It omits critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, if it snaps to grid or design rules, or what happens to existing overlapping tracks. The minimal statement does not enable an agent to understand side effects.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse for a tool with 7 parameters. It lacks structure such as sections for parameters or side effects, making it adequate in length but insufficient in information density.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, coordinate system, or design rule implications. An agent would lack crucial context to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has only 14% description coverage (only the layer parameter has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining the meaning or units of startX, startY, endX, endY, net, or lineWidth. The vague phrase 'between two points' provides little semantic value beyond the schema property 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 states the verb (create) and the specific resource (single track segment), and it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like pcb_create_via and pcb_create_pour by specifying 'track segment' and 'between two points on a layer/net'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or when not to use it. It fails to differentiate usage scenarios from the many other creation tools in the sibling list.

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