Get Schematic Pin Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the output ('exact x/y coordinates of every pin') and the intended workflow (label placement on pin endpoints), going beyond the structured 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 two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose clearly, and the second gives concise usage guidance. No redundant information or unnecessary detail.

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 (2 required params, read-only, output schema present), the description covers the essential elements: what it returns, how to use it in context, and the necessary parameters. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (reference, schematicPath), including examples like 'U1, R1, J2'. The description itself does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning, so the baseline of 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 function: 'Returns the exact x/y coordinates of every pin on a schematic component.' It identifies a specific resource (schematic component pins) and provides a concrete use case, distinguishing it from siblings like add_schematic_net_label.

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 explicitly directs when to use the tool: 'Use this before add_schematic_net_label to place labels correctly on pin endpoints.' This names a specific sibling tool and provides context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative approaches.

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