run_external_autorouter

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds valuable safety context by stating the job is isolated, bounded, and never invokes a shell. However, it does not explain whether the job runs asynchronously, how results are returned, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps for such an external-process 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 is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key safety trait without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and front-loaded. This is an exemplary model of brevity.

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 complexity of running an external autorouter with 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover job lifecycle, input requirements, return semantics, or dependencies on other tools. The existing output schema may help, but the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation in varied contexts.

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% and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. None of the 7 parameters (path, threads, dsn_path, timeout_seconds, etc.) are explained in the description, so the agent must rely solely on parameter names and defaults. This is a critical deficiency for a tool with this many undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool starts an isolated, bounded Freerouting CLI job, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like route_net or export_autorouter_dsn by emphasizing the external CLI nature and the isolation/bounding guarantees. The safety note about not invoking a shell further clarifies its scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when running an external autorouter is appropriate. The absence of any comparative direction makes this dimension weak.

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