Pin assignment

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world tool, so safety needs no restating. The description adds useful content-level context about what appears in the report (banks, I/O standards, dual-function roles) and that clock routing is included, but says nothing about error behavior or handling of ambiguous build paths.

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 sentences, no filler, with the purpose and reported fields front-loaded before the filtering note. The field enumeration is long but each item is informative rather than decorative.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what the return contains and that clock routing and unused pins are options. Combined with 100% parameter documentation and full annotations, an agent has nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the glob/substring matching and the includeClocks/includeUnused defaults. The description's filter sentence largely duplicates the port parameter rather than adding new semantics; 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?

The description names a specific resource (pin assignment as placed) and enumerates exactly what it reports: package pin, bank, I/O standard, drive, pull mode, dual-function role, and clock routing. That is clearly distinct from siblings like gowin_timing or gowin_resources, though no sibling is named explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this report versus gowin_resources, gowin_timing, or gowin_summary, and no prerequisites. The only procedural hint is how to scope results by port name, which is filtering mechanics rather than usage guidance.

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