pcb_auto_route_nets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two routing strategies and the requirement for DRC recheck, which adds valuable context. However, it fails to mention potential side effects such as modifying or deleting existing tracks, or whether it routes all nets or only selected ones.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('自动布线') and packs all key mode information compactly. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 complex board-modifying operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It misses critical operational details like whether existing tracks are ripped up, how failures are handled, and the scope of nets affected, making it incomplete for the AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by linking 'useVias' to the two-layer L-shape mode and 'clearance' to obstacle avoidance, which goes beyond the individual schema descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

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 '自动布线' (auto-routing) and specifies two routing modes: single-layer obstacle avoidance and two-layer L-shape with vias. This distinguishes it from manual routing tools like pcb_route_track and other auto-routing variants.

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 implies use when automatic routing is desired and explicitly notes that DRC recheck is needed afterward. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'auto' versus manual routing is clear from sibling tool names.

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