Large language model (LLM) agents are extending electronic design automation (EDA) beyond static RTL generation toward long-horizon, tool-interactive workflows. Yet it remains unclear whether general-purpose coding agents, even with domain-specific EDA skills, can reliably execute an end-to-end RTL-to-GDS flow encompassing synthesis, physical implementation, and engineering change order (ECO) optimization. We evaluate AI agents on a PicoRV32 RTL-to-GDS flow using commercial EDA tools under two timing targets. Their performance is assessed using end-to-end design score, stage completion, and Token ROI, a cost-efficiency metric relating design quality to runtime and cost. Comparing three agent architectures and four foundation models, we derive three practical lessons. First, domain-specific skills improve agents' understanding of individual subtasks but do not ensure reliable completion of a long-horizon EDA flow. Second, agents that achieve similar design progress can still differ by up to 141 times in Token ROI, revealing substantial differences in runtime and cost efficiency. Third, low-level tool-interface mismatches are a major source of physical design failures, particularly when Tcl commands depend on the tool version or execution mode. These results suggest that robust Agentic EDA requires not only stronger models but also structured tool interfaces, persistent design context, controlled execution, and process-level evaluation.
Physical design quality-of-results~(QoR) optimization is hard and expensive. Choices made at one stage can help or hurt later stages. Each evaluation requires a costly EDA run through the full flow. While existing methods still treat optimization as flat parameter tuning or a LLM-based script generation task, we present AgenticPD, a stage-aware agentic framework for physical design QoR optimization. Instead of re-running the full flow after every trial, AgenticPD is organized around the stage boundaries of the physical design flow, where a Judge Agent navigates the search and stage-specialized agents make local decisions within their own stage using stage-local tools. Additionally, the agent harness in AgenticPD provides structured observations, execution history, and agent context management. As a result, the system can branch from prior intermediate states and reuse checkpoints to continue the optimization procedure, and every candidate is evaluated at the post-route signoff. Across these baselines, AgenticPD achieves strong post-route timing while remaining competitive in power and area.