pcb_get_component_pads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly does so: it discloses the response shape, the presence of `_datasheet_guidance`/`_datasheet_parts`, and a real correctness pitfall (vendor-inconsistent thermal pad numbering). It never explicitly confirms this is a non-mutating read or mentions error behavior for unknown designators, so not a 5.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the explicit 'Returns:' block duplicates fields already available in the output schema, and the DATASHEET DISCIPLINE paragraph is verbose for a single-argument read tool. Useful content, but it is longer than needed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and the description goes beyond by flagging the datasheet caveat and the auxiliary metadata keys. Only gap is failure behavior for an invalid or unplaced designator.

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 coverage is 0% (a single undocumented `designator` string), so the description must compensate and does: 'Component reference designator (e.g., "U1", "J3")' adds both meaning and concrete format examples the schema lacks. Missing only notes on scoping, e.g. that the designator must exist on the current board.

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 and resource: 'Get all pads of a specific PCB component', and lists what pad data is returned. It is clearly distinct from siblings like pcb_get_pad_properties or lib_get_pad_geometry, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides clear procedural guidance for using the result: cross-check the manufacturer datasheet's mechanical/land-pattern section before asserting pad-to-pin mapping, and warns that footprint pad names (thermal pads on QFN/DFN) are unreliable. It does not say when to prefer this tool over a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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