pcb_route_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'draw a track.' It does not explain whether existing tracks are overwritten, whether design rules are checked, whether a document must be open, or what the tool returns after execution.

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?

At three characters, the description is extremely concise and has no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized for a tool with four required parameters. The single phrase lacks useful structure and does not earn its place as a standalone definition.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a nested points array among four required parameters, an agent needs more context about what happens when the tool runs and how results are reported. The description is incomplete and leaves almost all behavioral context to the schema and tool name.

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 100%, and each parameter (net, layer, width, points) has a basic descriptive comment. The description text adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '画走线' clearly identifies a drawing/routing operation on a PCB track, so an agent can infer the primary resource and action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling track-related tools such as pcb_create_via or pcb_delete_tracks, though it is not a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pcb_create_via, pcb_create_diff_pair, or pcb_delete_tracks. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual selection cues are given.

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