pcb_get_routing_context

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness; the description aligns with these by saying 'Read' and 'No autorouting'. It adds value by enumerating the data categories (endpoints, copper, obstacles, outline, connectivity), giving a clearer picture than the annotations alone.

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 two-clause sentence that front-loads the action and object, adds one crucial non-assertion ('No autorouting'), and contains no redundant filler. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only context getter with no output schema, the description names the main return content categories, which is helpful. However, it omits any explanation of the target parameter structure, the expected net format, or how the returned routing context is represented, leaving moderate gaps for an agent to resolve from the schema alone.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely implies the 'net' parameter by mentioning net endpoints and gives zero explanation of the nested 'target' object or its windowId/projectId/documentId/domain fields. The agent must guess parameter semantics from names and schema structure.

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 ('Read') and names the exact resources: net endpoints, copper, obstacles, outline, and connectivity. The explicit 'No autorouting' clause distinguishes it from route-modifying siblings like pcb_apply_route or pcb_check_route, so an agent can select it confidently.

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?

'before the MODEL chooses a path' clearly frames when this read is appropriate, and 'No autorouting' rules out the expectation that this tool will make routing decisions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions for pcb_get_state, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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