Auto Route PCB

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity and local execution, which are valuable, but it does not mention that routing may be async (implied by wait_auto_route sibling), that it modifies the PCB file, or how timeouts behave. The external instructions reference partially compensates but is not a substitute for explicit disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and provides a pointer to detailed instructions. It is appropriately brief and every word earns its place, though the brevity limits the amount of information conveyed.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. The reference to instructions.md adds a useful resource, but the description itself does not cover the workflow, return values, or parameter semantics, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 only 13%, with 7 of 8 parameters lacking descriptions. The tool description does not compensate for this gap; it only implicitly mentions the PCB path and says nothing about wait_ms, route_layers, ignore_nets, or other parameters.

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 KiCad PCB using a bundled local WASM router and applies it atomically. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_pcb_layout or wait_auto_route.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison. The pointer to instructions.md is a vague hint but does not explain prerequisites, whether this should be used after make_pcb_layout, or when manual routing is preferred.

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