route_diff_pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that dry_run=true previews without writing and that dry_run=false commits the route with a required expected_sha256. It also discloses that omitted clearance comes from document DRC and that distances are always in millimeters regardless of document Units, which are non-obvious and valuable details.

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 concise sentences. The first states the primary action, the second gives a critical unit override, and the third explains the safe two-step commit workflow. No redundant phrases or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 17 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description provides the crucial dry-run workflow and unit context, but it omits semantics for most parameters and does not mention prerequisites like the need for an existing differential pair. It is insufficiently complete for an agent to use reliably without further investigation.

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 17 parameters. It only explains dry_run and expected_sha256, plus the clearance default. Many parameters (txid, path, preferred_layers, start/end_pad_point_id, via_style, max_detour, etc.) remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and valid values.

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 'Route a coupled pair' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and 'coupled pair' indicates a differential pair in context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like route_net or plan_diff_pair_route, relying on the tool name to carry that distinction.

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 a clear safe-usage workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, then set dry_run=false only after inspecting and passing expected_sha256. It also notes the distance-unit override. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions (e.g., pair must exist) apply.

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