list_pads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses little beyond that it is a listing operation. It adds one useful trait (net_filter is a case-insensitive substring match), but says nothing about read-only nature explicitly, result size, ordering, or pagination for what could be a very large list.

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 main purpose leads, followed by a compact Args block for the two parameters. No redundant sentences; the format is front-loaded and easy to scan, though the Args block is slightly heavier than needed for two simple params.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and purpose plus both parameters are covered. The only gap is that it does not indicate how many pads may be returned or whether very large already-complete the agent's needs for a filtered-list read tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'reference' is scoped to 'pads belonging to this footprint reference' and 'net_filter' is explicitly a case-insensitive substring match. This distinguishes exact-reference matching from substring net matching, which the bare schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List pads on the board') and names the two available filters. The resource 'pads' is distinct from siblings like list_footprints or list_tracks, so an agent can place it, but there is no explicit call-out of when this is preferable to a sibling such as get_footprint_geometry.

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 notes the optional filters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_footprint_geometry, get_items_by_net) and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'optionally filtered'.

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