pcb_list_diff_pairs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight, and the word 'list' does convey a read-only, non-mutating operation. Still, it does not describe the return format, ordering, or any dependence on board state or open document, so some behavioral aspects are left unspecified.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the operation and resource with no filler or redundancy. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list operation, the description is mostly sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what the returned differential-pair data contains or how it is structured. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity, but it prevents full completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, the description is adequately silent.

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 clear verb ('列出' / list) and specifies the exact resource ('所有差分对' / all differential pairs), making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as pcb_create_diff_pair or pcb_list_equal_lengths, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 'list all differential pairs' implies the tool should be used when a read-only enumeration of differential pairs is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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