proj_get_unconnected_pins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical side effect: the project is compiled first because connectivity data requires it, which signals a potentially slow, state-touching operation. It stops short of saying whether the compile persists changes or how long it takes, but the key behavioral trait is surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, followed by the mechanism and return shape in two tight blocks. The 'iterates all components via the DM API' clause is implementation detail that adds little for an agent, a small amount of waste.

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?

Covers what it finds, the compile prerequisite, and the result fields, and an output schema exists so return details are already redundant-but-harmless. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the closely related audit_find_unconnected_ic_pins / audit_find_floating_ports siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of the focused project implicitly explains why no target argument is needed.

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 ('Find unconnected/floating pins') and scopes it to the focused project, which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like audit_find_unconnected_ic_pins or audit_find_floating_ports, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'focused project' phrasing signals a prerequisite but never states it as a condition, and there is no guidance on when to pick this over the audit_find_* pin/port checks. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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