pcb_route_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'draw routing.' It does not explain whether this creates a new track, modifies the board, requires an existing net, performs design-rule checks, or what side effects occur. This is effectively a behaviorally opaque description.

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?

'画走线' is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. For a tool with four required parameters and no annotations, the description lacks even the minimal structure needed to orient an agent, resembling the low-scoring 'Process' example.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is only a three-character phrase. It does not cover return values, behavior, preconditions, or usage context, making it severely incomplete for correct invocation in an agentic workflow.

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 description adds no parameter-level explanation, but the input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (net, layer, width, points). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not need to compensate.

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' translates to 'draw routing/track,' which conveys a specific action on a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pcb_auto_route_nets or pcb_route_differential_pairs, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_auto_route_nets or pcb_create_via. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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