plan_diff_pair_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two useful behavioral facts: omitted clearance is taken from document DRC, and distances are always in millimetres regardless of Units. However, it does not disclose whether the plan mutates the design, requires a transaction, returns a plan to be applied later, or any other side effects.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the function, the second adds a critical unit caveat. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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's high complexity (14 parameters, planning semantics, output schema), a two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return value behavior, how the plan is consumed (e.g., via apply_route_plan), parameter guidelines, and the distinction from direct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning except indirectly noting that 'clearance' may be omitted. With 14 parameters (pair, layer, gap, width, via_style, etc.), the description is expected to compensate, but it does not explain any of them.

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 states a specific action ('Plan a coupled route') and a resource. It hints at a planning (rather than direct routing) operation, and the mention of 'coupled' distinguishes it from generic routing tools, though the relationship to sibling 'route_diff_pair' is not explicitly clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'route_diff_pair' or 'set_diff_pair_rules'. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer intent from the name alone.

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