openroad_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (routing and reporting metrics) but does not mention side effects like writing the output DEF, output format details, or error behavior. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 sentence that states the core action, the algorithm, the input, and the outputs without any fluff. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect in return. While it mentions reporting metrics, it does not specify the output format or whether files are written. For a 5-param tool in a suite, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds contextual value by clarifying that routing operates on a placed DEF and reports metrics, but it does not add detail beyond the schema for individual 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 clearly states a specific action: performing global routing (FastRoute) and detailed routing on a placed DEF file. It also names the resource and the reported outcomes (wirelength and DRC metrics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like openroad_place and openroad_sta.

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 phrase 'placed DEF file' implies the tool is used after placement, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as openroad_pnr or openroad_place. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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