Read pin assignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only.' in the description is redundant. The one genuinely additive behavioral detail is the conditional cross-check against the compiler-generated .pin report when present, but error behavior and result shape are unaddressed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the conditional cross-check. No filler or repetition beyond the minor 'Read-only.' restatement of annotations.

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?

For a read-only extraction tool with no output schema, the description covers the source artifact, the scope (device and pin assignments), and the optional verification step. It could say more about what the returned pin data looks like, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (project, workspace) are fully documented in the schema, including ambiguity resolution and env-var defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('extract') and precise resources: device and pin assignments from the .acf CHIP block, plus a secondary cross-check against the .pin report. This is distinguishable from siblings like acf_read_sections or acf_validate without opening schemas.

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 implies when the tool applies (reading .acf CHIP pin data) and notes the conditional .pin cross-check when that report exists. However it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over acf_read_sections, acf_validate, or project_inspect, leaving selection to inference.

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