stitch_vias

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses substantial behavior: vias are placed on a grid only where they clear other copper, never via-in-pad, they avoid holes/keepouts/board edge, use the design's clearance and drill rules, and the whole set lands in one undo step. dry_run's plan-only semantics are also stated. This is rich context that the annotations alone (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) do not provide.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then the two complex parameters with examples. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical depth on under_parts edges toward over-explanation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the important behavior (undo, dry_run, placement constraints) well. The gap is the undocumented drill_mm/max_vias/pitch_mm parameters, which an agent cannot set knowingly.

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 carry the load. It does document keep_away_mm and under_parts in depth with concrete examples, plus net and dry_run, but it leaves drill_mm, max_vias, and pitch_mm completely unexplained, so 3 of 7 parameters remain ambiguous.

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+resource ('via stitching for a net's pours') and details the placement rule (grid, clears other nets' copper, avoids pads/holes/keepouts/edge). It is clearly distinct from a single-via tool, but it never names the close siblings add_via, ground_vias, or clean_vias, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The description explains how the tool behaves and the effect of keep_away_mm and under_parts, and notes dry_run plans only, which implies the planning-then-commit workflow. However it never says when to choose this over the other via tools (add_via, ground_vias, clean_vias), leaving usage to inference.

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