route_net

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the step-by-step growth (start at an unconnected pad, end on a partner pad or any existing copper = a tap), write-and-check ordering, the termination condition (no airwires; pours count as copper), and that dry_run defaults to true and only plans the first connection. Missing permissions/rate info, but this is rich disclosure for a mutation 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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and scope before the mechanics. The tree/airwire sentence is information-heavy but each clause carries routing semantics rather than filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description explains the routing behavior well but leaves most parameters unexplained and does not describe the return shape beyond the dry_run 'picture'. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only dry_run (default true, plans just the first connection and returns its picture) and implicitly net; layer, width_mm, max_steps, allow_vias, and clearance_mm are left entirely 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 a whole net') and characterizes the scope via the algorithm (one airwire at a time, shortest first, growing as a tree). It is clearly distinct from single-trace siblings like route_trace and route_pair, though it never names them explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Conveys context through the description of the routing loop and stopping condition, and the dry_run default implies a safe preview-first workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (autoroute, route_trace, route_remaining) and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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