route_net

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the clearance resolution algorithm, the clearance_rule_status result, the limitation of not being a full DRC sign-off, the millimeter-unit rule regardless of document Units, and the dry-run/no-write plus expected_sha256 safeguard. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating routing tool.

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 starts with the main action and each sentence carries operational meaning; the clearance explanation is dense but warranted. A few clearance details could be compressed, but overall it is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a complex routing tool.

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?

For a 13-parameter routing tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers safety, units, clearance behavior, and result caveats well; the output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated. It is less complete on alternative-tool selection and ambiguous parameters like path and txid.

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 adds real meaning for clearance ('explicit requested clearance' vs board DRC defaults), dry_run, expected_sha256, and the millimeter rule that applies to numeric parameters. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description leaves path, txid, max_vias, via_cost, via_style, and preferred_layers unexplained, so compensation is only 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 opening 'Route exported ratlines' names a specific operation and target, and the rest of the description focuses on routing behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like route_connection or route_diff_pair, so differentiation is left mostly to the term 'ratlines'.

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 a clear workflow: use dry_run=true to preview, inspect the preview, then set dry_run=false with expected_sha256; it also clarifies how omitted clearance is resolved. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over route_connection/route_connections/plan_route_nets or list exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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