Get Pads

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned data (XY, layer, size, net) and indicating that it can return pads for all components, which may imply a broad result set. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope. There is no wasted wording, and it earns its place by conveying the key functionality immediately.

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 has an output schema (per context signals), the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it still mentions key output fields. It's complete for a simple read-only tool with optional parameters, though it could clarify behavior when both refs and reference are supplied, which is a minor 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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mapping refs to 'selected refs' and reference to 'one PCB component', but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or further syntax, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 pads for PCB components with specific data (XY, layer, size, net). It differentiates scope (single component, selected refs, all components) but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_component_pads or get_net_pads, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context by listing the three scopes (one component, selected refs, all components), which tells an agent when to use this tool. However, it doesn't offer exclusions or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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