easyeda_auto_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the write-permission requirement, that it does not auto-save (state persists only after a separate save), and that failed nets are preserved rather than rolled back. It does not say what exactly is overwritten on existing traces, which keeps it at 4.

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?

A single compact line with the core action front-loaded, then constraints separated by semicolons. Every clause carries information (scope, permission, persistence). Slightly telegraphic for an agent unfamiliar with the CLI flag convention.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents parameters including the document_uuid prerequisite. Combined with the destructive annotation and the description's note on permissions, non-persistence, and failed-net retention, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the default behavior when nets is omitted. The description references 'RoutingNets' / 'failedNets' rather than the schema's parameter name 'nets', adding a slight naming mismatch instead of extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: invoking the official PCB auto-router (自动布线), which is clearly distinct from component placement (easyeda_auto_layout). It also states the two behavioral knobs (RoutingNets / failedNets). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite ('需 --allow-write') and a post-condition ('不自动保存'), which help an agent plan the call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, such as running easyeda_check_drc before or after, or choosing between this and easyeda_auto_layout. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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