autoroute

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

With annotations only covering the generic safe-mutation flags, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: it explains the `route_past_planes` Fusion prompt semantics (Yes keeps signals off the plane, the pour refills around new vias), the TopRouter hang risk and its temporary override with restoration of design settings, and that metrics are returned before and after.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then adds parameter-specific notes as parenthetical asides. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the nested asides about TopRouter and planes make it slightly harder to scan than an ideal layout.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does state that routing metrics are returned before and after, plus the interaction with pours and the autorouter settings. The only gap is the undocumented `timeout_s` and no default value disclosure for parameters, which the schema does provide.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains `nets`, `engine`, `top_router`, and `route_past_planes` semantics in real depth (e.g. engine='fusion' applies the best variant by completeness then fewest vias). It omits `timeout_s` entirely, leaving one of five parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Route unrouted connections with an autorouter, keeping existing traces') and immediately distinguishes itself from manual routing siblings by noting it preserves existing traces and that without `nets` it 'routes everything left.' An agent can tell this apart from route_net, route_trace, and route_remaining without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: route critical nets, power, and pours before invoking, and the default scope when `nets` is omitted. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. route_remaining or route_trace) for the 'route everything left' case, so routing between tools is inferred rather than stated.

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