plan_route_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds two useful non-obvious traits: distances are always in millimeters regardless of document units, and omitted clearance is taken from the document DRC. However, it does not disclose whether the tool mutates the document, returns a plan, or has 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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences that each add meaningful information. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a complex 10-parameter routing-plan tool. It leaves key behaviors (what 'bounded' means, side effects, prerequisites) and most parameter semantics unexplained, making it hard for an agent to use confidently.

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 but only offers a general unit rule and a fallback for clearance. It does not explain the meaning of required parameters (nets, layer, width) or optional ones like max_vias, via_cost, via_style, or preferred_layers.

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 phrase 'Plan bounded routes' gives a specific verb ('plan') and resource ('routes'), and the tool name identifies nets as the target. It distinguishes from direct routing/execution siblings like 'route_net' and 'apply_route_plan', though the term 'bounded' is not defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'route_net' or 'plan_diff_pair_route'. The description implies a planning use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contrasting tools.

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