export_autorouter_dsn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a precondition ('when exact footprint geometry is available') and the artifact type, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if geometry is unavailable, or any side effects. The term 'bounded' is ambiguous and unexplained.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, but the use of jargon like 'bounded Specctra DSN artifact' may require additional clarity. Nonetheless, it is appropriately sized for a short description, though not as minimal as a tautology.

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 2 optional parameters, no annotations, and only a brief description, context is insufficient. The description does not explain what 'bounded' means, what the parameters do, or how this relates to other autorouter tools. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but not with usage context or parameter semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions neither 'path' nor 'design_name', leaving both optional parameters entirely unexplained. This is a complete failure to add semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb ('Export') and a specific resource ('bounded Specctra DSN artifact'). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_bom or export_fabrication_outputs, and even from related autorouter tools. The condition 'when exact footprint geometry is available' adds further specificity.

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 phrase 'when exact footprint geometry is available' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced as an alternative.

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