pcb_auto_fanout_and_route

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only lists the pipeline steps. It does not mention that routing may modify existing tracks, what happens if DRC fails, whether it's undoable, or any other behavioral details. For a mutating pipeline, this is insufficient transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the entire pipeline flow. It is efficiently structured with a clean arrow separator, avoiding waste while delivering the essential sequence.

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?

While the pipeline is clearly defined, the description omits details like whether the tool works on the whole board vs current selection (it says 'all' but not explicit), error handling, or any preconditions. It meets the minimum for a multi-step automation but lacks depth for a complex mutation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. According to the baseline, a 4 is appropriate since no parameter clarification is required and the schema is empty.

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 clearly states it's a pipeline performing fanout, routing, DRC, and silkscreen repair on all components/nets. It uses specific verbs for each stage, distinguishes from siblings like pcb_fanout_component which only does fanout, and makes the integrated nature obvious.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not compare to individual tools or mention scenarios where the full pipeline may be inappropriate. The pipeline nature is implied but not clarified for selection purposes.

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