eda_sch_document_auto_routing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the document, what happens to existing routes, or any side effects. The return value is described only as '自动布线结果' (auto routing result), which is vague. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 short and to the point, with the signature and a remark. It's not padded, but it's presented as a code snippet rather than structured prose, which may be harder for an agent to parse. It could be better organized with a clear purpose statement and parameter explanations.

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 routing tool with multiple optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits any explanation of the parameters' semantics, preconditions (e.g., needing an open schematic), how routing is performed, or what the result object contains. An agent would lack critical information to call this tool correctly.

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 description includes the function signature with parameter names and types (uuids, netlist, designatorDeviceTypeMap) but provides no explanation of what each parameter does or how they affect routing. The input schema only documents the wrapper 'args' and 'windowId', not the actual parameters, so the schema doesn't compensate. The agent would have to guess the meaning of these parameters.

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 states the operation is '自动布线' (auto routing), which is a clear action, but it doesn't explicitly identify the resource (schematic document) beyond the tool name. It also doesn't differentiate from the sibling eda_pcb_document_auto_routing, so an agent might confuse the two.

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 only usage hint is the remark that passing no parameters routes all unrouted nets. There is no guidance on when to pass parameters, what alternatives exist (e.g., PCB auto routing), or preconditions like having an open schematic. This is insufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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