analyze_routing_congestion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'without editing' (non-destructive), explains the deterministic congestion ranking, details the clearance resolution logic (maximum of explicit, board defaults, NetClass rules), notes the output includes 'clearance_rule_status' and effective value, emphasizes this is not a full DRC sign-off, and specifies units (millimetres regardless of document Units). This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with three dense sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second explains clearance resolution and output contents, and the third gives units and a limitation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, behavioral rules, output structure, and a key limitation, which is good for a complex analysis tool. However, it lacks parameter semantics, which is a significant gap given the input schema has no descriptions. The presence of an output schema and the tool's non-editing nature partially compensate, but the lack of parameter explanation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the three parameters (path, ordering, connections). It mentions 'explicit requested clearance' which may relate to a field in connections, but provides no explanation of what 'connections' should contain, how 'ordering' works, or what 'path' refers to. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, offering almost no parameter guidance.

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 'Rank route connections by deterministic corridor congestion without editing', a specific verb and resource, and explicitly notes it is non-editing. This distinguishes it from editing tools like 'route_connection' and other analysis tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 for analyzing and ranking congestion without modification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative analysis tools (e.g., 'get_route_details' or 'list_unrouted_connections'). It also offers no exclusions or clarifications of when not to use it, leaving usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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