find_testpoint_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully disclose that generation is 'deterministic' and that distances are in millimetres regardless of document units—a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not indicate whether the tool modifies the design, requires a live session, or has other side effects, leaving the safety profile unclear.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. The unit clarification is a valuable, non-obvious detail that earns its place. There is no waste or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 7 parameters and a specialized algorithm ('deterministic free-grid'). The description leaves critical details unexplained, such as how the free grid behaves, what constraints candidate placement respects, and how the output is structured. It is too minimal for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has no field descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only indirectly references 'selected nets' and 'distances.' It fails to explain the meaning of grid, side, clearance, probe_diameter, candidates_per_net, or path, leaving an agent with no guidance on how to set these parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('testpoint candidates for selected nets'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_testpoints or list_testpoints. It also adds precision with 'deterministic free-grid', making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 description gives some context ('for selected nets') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review_testpoint_coverage or add_testpoints. It lacks clear exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, relying on the user to infer the tool's role from the name and description alone.

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