route_trace

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

Annotations declare a mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: 45-degree-only corners, avoidance of other nets' copper, keepouts and board edge, exact pad-centre termination, via minimization, and the dry_run default that returns a plan/picture before any write plus a post-draw board check. It omits failure behavior (error vs partial trace) and reversibility, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

It is dense and front-loads the core action (routing one pad-to-pad connection) before the routing rules, layer/via options, and dry_run workflow. The semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly run-on, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 10-parameter board-mutating tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers the routing semantics and the dry-run safety workflow well, but leaves several numeric parameters (grid, width, via geometry) unexplained and says nothing about what the returned plan/picture contains. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain layer values ('top'/'bottom'/'any'), allow_vias=false forbidding vias, dry_run defaults, clearance_mm as an override, and the from_pad/to_pad format. But it says nothing about grid_mm, width_mm, via_drill_mm, or via_diameter_mm, leaving 4 of 10 parameters undocumented, so coverage is partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Route one connection between two pads') and gives the exact pad-reference format with examples ('J1.A19' to 'J9.5'). The phrase 'one connection between two pads' implicitly separates it from batch siblings like route_net/route_pair/route_close, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 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 lays out the intended workflow (dry_run=true first to get the plan and picture, then re-run with dry_run=false to draw), which is real usage guidance. However it never states when to choose this tool over route_net, route_pair, add_trace, or autoroute, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions, so the routing-to-the-right-tool guidance is only implied.

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