Wait Auto Route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'wait' but does not describe blocking behavior, timeout handling, what happens if the operation is not found, or whether it polls. Key behavioral traits are undisclosed.

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 that communicates the essential purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite being a simple wait tool, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description must provide context about return values, timeout behavior, and error cases. It does not. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent on how to invoke and interpret the tool reliably.

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%, and the description does not explain operation_id or wait_ms. While the schema provides type/constraint information, the description adds no meaning about what these parameters represent or how they relate to the routing operation. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Wait for') and the specific target ('a running local PCB auto-route operation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auto_route_pcb (which initiates routing) and cancel_auto_route (which cancels). The inclusion of 'local' also adds scope clarity.

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 implies usage after starting an auto-route operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_pcb_layout or cancel_auto_route. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage context is only implied.

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