route_diff_pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses clearance precedence rules, unit behavior independent of document settings, preview-vs-write semantics, expected_sha256 requirement, and that the result is not a full DRC sign-off.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core action, clearance rule, result caveat, unit caveat, and safety workflow. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the most critical operational details: clearance resolution, unit handling, dry-run workflow, and result limitations. It does not explain every parameter or interaction with transaction tools, but it is sufficient for safe invocation in most cases.

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 description explains important parameters such as clearance, dry_run, and expected_sha256, adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. However, schema description coverage is 0% and there are 17 parameters; many parameters like txid, path, max_detour, via_cost, and pad point IDs remain undocumented, leaving significant gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Route a coupled pair', which clearly identifies the action and target. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like plan_diff_pair_route or validate_differential_pair by focusing on actual routing rather than planning or validation.

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 dry-run-to-commit workflow is explicit: preview with dry_run=true, inspect the result, then set dry_run=false and pass expected_sha256. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the preview/write guidance gives clear context for safe usage.

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