routing_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned metric set but nothing about cost, freshness, or whether it computes on the fly, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 terse fragment listing exactly what is reported, with no preamble or waste. It is slightly under-framed as a bare noun list rather than a sentence, but it is appropriately sized for a no-arg status tool.

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 simple read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, compensating for the missing return-value documentation. Nothing essential is missing, though a one-word framing of the source (current design) would help.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty argument object.

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 the specific metrics the tool reports (unrouted connections/nets, segment and via counts, routed length), which clearly identifies it as a routing-status readout rather than an action tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighbors like get_board_summary that might overlap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_board_summary or the route_* tools, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the metric list.

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