list_testpoints

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 does disclose one behavioral trait: 'All distances are in millimetres, regardless of the document's own Units attribute.' It also clarifies the scope as 'explicit TP standalone-pad components.' However, it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no testpoints exist, or how the selector parameter affects the result.

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 only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a useful unit detail. The 'Input schema' line is somewhat redundant since the schema is already attached to the tool definition, but it does not significantly bloat the description.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values). However, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, and it does not explain what 'explicit TP standalone-pad components' means in enough detail. For a listing tool, the missing parameter explanations create a notable gap.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'path' or 'selector' parameters. The statement 'Input schema: diptrace://schemas/tool-inputs' is a reference, not an explanation. The agent is given no information about how to use these optional parameters or what values they expect.

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 the tool's function: 'List explicit TP standalone-pad components in a PCB document.' It uses a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (TP standalone-pad components), and the scope is narrowed by 'explicit' and 'standalone-pad'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_testpoint_candidates, add_testpoints, or remove_testpoints.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it lists existing testpoints as opposed to finding candidates or modifying testpoints, nor does it reference any related tools. The only contextual hint is the tool name itself.

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