analyze_specctra_dsn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that parsing happens locally and enumerates the extracted data categories, which tells the agent this is a read-only inspection. It is silent on failure behavior for malformed `.dsn` content, whether one source parameter takes precedence when both are supplied, and whether anything is written to disk.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a compact enumeration of outputs. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the source options are placed where they are needed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned data (units, resolution, layers, boundary dimensions, component count, netlist summary, design rules). For a two-parameter read-only parser this is nearly sufficient; only input-validation and parameter-precedence behavior remain unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the one genuinely useful relational fact that the two parameters are alternative input sources, but it does not state precedence or that both being empty is a problem despite an empty required list.

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?

States a specific verb pair (parse and analyze) plus a narrowly scoped resource: a Specctra `.dsn` autorouter file. The file-format specificity implicitly separates it from the KiCad sibling, but no alternative is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(from `dsn_text` or `project_path`)' implies you call it when you already hold a `.dsn` payload or a local path, and 'locally' signals no remote/upload step. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites for the path case, and no routing to or away from sibling analyzers.

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