route_net

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it delivers: it reveals that distances are always in millimetres regardless of document units, which is non-obvious. It also discloses that the tool writes changes when dry_run=false and requires expected_sha256 for that write, implying side effects. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action, the second gives unit and clearance fallback details, and the third explains the dry-run/commit protocol. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (13 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description covers the most critical aspects: the action, unit semantics, and the safe commit process. The output schema presumably handles return values. However, several parameters like preferred_layers, via_style, and grid remain unexplained, which could lead to suboptimal usage. Still, the essential workflow is sufficiently clear for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 clarifies three parameters: clearance (falls back to document DRC when omitted), dry_run (previews without writing), and expected_sha256 (used to validate the final write). These are valuable explanations for otherwise opaque parameters. However, the remaining 10 parameters, including net, layer, width, grid, and via_style, receive no additional explanation beyond the schema's types and defaults, so the compensation for 0% schema coverage 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 opens with 'Route exported ratlines', a specific verb+resource that clearly indicates routing of unrouted connections. However, it does not explicitly mention the tool operates on a single net (as implied by the 'net' parameter) nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like route_connection or route_connections. The purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives an explicit safe workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, inspect the result, then set dry_run=false with expected_sha256 to commit. This is strong usage guidance for the tool's own operation. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as route_connection or route_connections, leaving the 'vs alternatives' aspect unaddressed.

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