Get Pad Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only marginal behavioral context ('exact', 'accurate') and does not disclose return format or error behavior, but with annotations present and an output schema, the added value beyond annotations is limited.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a practical usage tip. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 2 required), existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke it. It even includes a use case ('before routing') that aids selection. No further context is needed.

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 100%, with all parameters (pad, unit, reference) already having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as default unit behavior or coordinate system, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the exact XY position of a specific pad on a PCB component, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('exact XY position of a specific pad'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pads or get_component_pads by emphasizing the 'specific pad' and 'exact position' rather than listing all pads.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before routing to get accurate start/end coordinates.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the routing context is a strong usage signal. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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