review_testpoint_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and prerequisites. It only states the action, not whether it is read-only, whether it requires a live session, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 entire description is a single focused sentence with no filler. It is maximally concise.

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 an output schema, so return values are defined elsewhere. However, the description does not explain what 'explicit standalone-pad' means, nor the relation to testpoint candidates or the current design context. For a measurement tool with related siblings, this is a moderate 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?

The description partially explains 'target_nets' via 'selected or all nets' but completely omits 'path'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Measure') with a precise resource ('explicit standalone-pad testpoint coverage') and a clear scope ('selected or all nets'). This distinguishes it from related tools like list_testpoints and find_testpoint_candidates.

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?

It implies usage when testpoint coverage needs to be quantified, but it does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria. The scope clause ('selected or all nets') gives context for targeting, but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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