export_specctra_dsn

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits, so the bar is low. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior - 'Includes heuristic component auto-placement' - which tells the agent this does more than serialize data. It still omits file destination/output handling, so not a 5.

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?

Two focused sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and its consumers, with zero filler. Every clause carries information about format, version, purpose, or behavior.

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, an agent would benefit from knowing what is returned (file path? inline data?) and where the interchange file lands. The description plus annotations otherwise cover the operation well, so the gap is minor rather than fatal.

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 the schema fully documents clearance, board dimensions, and trace width; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, though the DSN version is noted.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (Specctra DSN v15.0 auto-router interchange file), with version and intended downstream consumers. The format name distinguishes it from siblings like export_kicad_netlist, export_gerber_bundle, or export_ipc_d356 without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Names the target tools (Freerouting, Cadence Specctra, Altium, KiCad) for auto-routing, which implies the use context, but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or routing between this exporter and the many other export_* siblings. Usage is only inferable.

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