List Symbol Pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: return field semantics, acceptance of either number or name by connect_to_net, project-local symbol resolution, and close-match suggestions.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage, return field examples, and optional parameter behavior. Concise and front-loaded, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for a moderate-complexity read-only tool. It covers purpose, use case, param semantics, and a notable behavioral quirk without needing to explain return structure.

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 already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description confirms the 'Library:SymbolName' format and explains why schematicPath is needed, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return pin names, numbers, and types for a symbol directly from the library — no schematic required.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pins and library access, and explicitly ties to the add_schematic_component and connect_to_net workflow.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use this before add_schematic_component to discover pins for connect_to_net calls.' It also states a key condition ('no schematic required') and explains when to pass schematicPath, but doesn't enumerate exclusions or alternative tools.

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