analyze_return_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The unit note ('All distances are in millimetres, regardless of the document's own Units attribute') is a concrete behavioral detail that goes beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what 'low-confidence' means, leaving important behavior unspecified.

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 two sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides a crucial unit caveat. It is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place. Not a 5 because the first sentence is too vague to be maximally useful, but structurally concise.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is quite incomplete. It doesn't explain the context of 'return path' analysis, when to use it, or what the heuristics produce. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the purpose and input semantics are too underspecified for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the required parameter (stitching_radius_mm) by stating distances are in millimetres, but it does not explain the semantics of 'nets', 'path', or 'reference_nets'. The optional parameters remain ambiguous, and their role in the analysis is unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and references 'geometry heuristics', but the resource is vague: 'low-confidence geometry heuristics' does not clarify what 'return path' means or what specific analysis is performed. It doesn't distinguish from sibling analysis tools like analyze_placement or analyze_length_group, but it's not a tautology of the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra statement about units (millimetres) is a unit clarification, not a usage guideline. Without any context for when this heuristics analysis is appropriate, the agent cannot decide between this and sibling analysis tools.

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