plan_diff_pair_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses how clearance is resolved (max of explicit, board DRC defaults, NetClass rules), reports the structured result includes clearance_rule_status and effective value, and clarifies units are always millimeters regardless of document settings. This is substantive but omits any side effects (e.g., whether the route is actually applied) and does not describe error cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds necessary details about clearance resolution and output. It avoids redundancy but includes all key behavioral notes without excess.

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?

There is an output schema (so return values are partially covered externally), but the tool has 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage. The description explains the clearance mechanism and output status but leaves many parameter semantics unexplained and provides no guidance on typical use cases or limitations relative to sibling routing tools.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage over 14 parameters. The description only hints at 'explicit requested clearance' (likely the clearance parameter) but does not explain gap, width, max_vias, via_cost, preferred_layers, or others. Since schema coverage is zero, the description must compensate but fails to do so for the majority of parameters.

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's purpose: planning a coupled (differential pair) route, and distinguishes it from routing tools like route_diff_pair by focusing on clearance resolution behavior. It also explicitly notes it is not a full DRC sign-off, which differentiates it from run_drc.

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 conveys the context (planning a coupled route with specific clearance resolution) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like route_diff_pair or route_connection. It mentions limitations (not a full DRC) but no direct alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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