pcb_net_route

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists analyzed aspects (length, layers, widths, vias, endpoints, connectivity) which implies read-only behavior and no side effects. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., if net doesn't exist) or any limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundancy. Every part adds value—concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool analyzes (length, layers, etc.), providing sufficient context for a net analysis tool. However, it could mention that it returns a report or modifies nothing. Sibling comparison suggests it's detailed enough for its role.

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 100% with descriptions for 'net' and 'source'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond these schema descriptions; it merely implies 'net' is the net to analyze. Baseline 3 applies.

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 analyzes one PCB net's routed copper length, layer usage, widths, vias, endpoints, and connectivity. This distinguishes it from siblings like pcb_net_lengths (only length) and pcb_overview (board-level). The specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'one PCB net' provide precise purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_net_lengths or pcb_highlight_net. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., board must be loaded) or scenarios (e.g., for detailed routing inspection). The agent is left to infer usage context.

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