add_arc_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only describes geometry inputs. It does not disclose whether a board must be open, whether the mid point is validated as lying on the arc, whether the track is DRC-checked, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is a compact, scannable list. Slightly verbose in layout but every line carries unique parameter information that the schema lacks.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and parameter documentation is thorough. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, the definition is still incomplete for judging when and under what conditions to invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain all nine parameters — and it does, giving units (mm) for every coordinate and width, plus the meaning of the mid point and the optionality of net_name. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('Add a curved (arc) copper track') and immediately names the three defining points, which distinguishes it from the sibling straight-track tools add_track and add_track_path as well as the non-copper add_arc.

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 choose this over add_track, add_track_path, or add_arc, and no stated preconditions such as requiring an open board or an existing layer/net. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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