pin_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context: units (inches), coordinate type (absolute page), and an example output. However, it doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., whether a symbol must be placed first), error behavior, or whether the operation has side effects. The phrase 'based on measured geometry' hints at dependencies without specifying them.

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 concise: two sentences plus an inline example. It front-loads the core function, provides a concrete usage example, and avoids unnecessary words. 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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, and the description covers the main use case with an example. However, it omits preconditions (e.g., measured geometry requirements), the meaning of angle/flip_x, and edge cases. An output schema exists but is not shown, and the description doesn't rely on it. Overall, it's adequate for a simple example but lacks depth for robust agent decision-making.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example pin_point('NMOS1', 4.3, 6.0, 'gate') illustrates the roles of master, x, y, and pin. However, angle and flip_x are not explained at all, and the description does not explicitly define what x and y represent (e.g., symbol placement coordinates). Thus, it provides partial but incomplete parameter understanding.

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's function: returns the absolute page coordinate (inches) of a symbol pin based on measured geometry. It includes a concrete example with output, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like measured_pins or symbol_bounds, so it lacks explicit 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 says 'Use the result as the endpoint of draw_wire so wires land on pins,' which is explicit context for when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, so it's not fully complete guidance but provides a clear application.

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