freerouting_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is inspected (Java version, jars, Python), which implies a read-only diagnostic, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or is safe to call at any time.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the purpose and the exact checks performed. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema that documents return values, the description sufficiently explains what the tool reports. It is slightly incomplete in not stating usage timing or explicitly confirming read-only behavior, but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 has zero parameters and a 100% schema description coverage for an empty object. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource ('whether autorouting can run'), then enumerates the three checks: Java version, Freerouting jars, and KiCad's Python. This scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like install_freerouting (installation), autoroute (execution), and kicad_status (broader KiCad status).

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('Report whether autorouting can run'), suggesting it should be called before autorouting or when troubleshooting. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it, when not to use it, or name alternatives such as install_freerouting if prerequisites are missing.

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