route_connection

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: all distances are in millimeters regardless of document units, dry_run previews without writing, and the requirement to pass expected_sha256 after inspecting the preview. It also notes the deterministic, bounded nature of the algorithm. While it doesn't explicitly say the tool writes when dry_run=false, this is strongly implied.

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 long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, the second covering clearance and units, and the third explaining the dry-run workflow. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a complex tool with 22 parameters and no annotations. The output schema may document return values, but the description does not fully explain all algorithm parameters like max_vias, via_cost, bend_cost, or preferred_layers. It provides critical safety and workflow context (units, clearance, dry-run), but given the tool's complexity, more parameter guidance would be needed for full completeness.

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 22 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the semantics of clearance (omit for DRC TraceToTrace rule), dry_run (preview), expected_sha256 (verification), and the unit convention. However, many parameters such as max_vias, bend_cost, preferred_layers, and max_detour remain unexplained, so the compensation is partial.

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, 'Route one pad-to-pad connection', with a clear resource (connection between pads) and a defining algorithm ('bounded deterministic 45-degree A*'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_net or route_connections, which handle broader routing scopes.

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 provides clear usage context: it routes a single connection, and it gives a specific workflow with dry_run and expected_sha256. It also explains how to handle clearance (omit to use the DRC rule). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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