connect_pins

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), placing full burden on description. The description says it combines tools that modify schematics but provides no details on side effects, error handling, or whether it replaces existing connections. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a succinct list of arguments. There is no wasted text, though the args list could be integrated more naturally.

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?

Given the complexity of connecting pins (5 params, multiple underlying steps), the description covers the high-level action but misses details like output format (though output schema exists), what happens on conflict, or prerequisites (e.g., schematic must exist). Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description only provides examples ('U1', 'C3') without explaining parameter meaning or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names. For a tool with 5 parameters, more guidance 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?

The description clearly states the action ('connect two component pins'), the specific routing method ('Manhattan (L-shaped) wire routing'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like add_wires by noting it combines multiple steps into one call.

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 mentions it combines get_pin_positions + coordinate math + add_wires, implying a convenience function, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like add_wires or wire_pins_to_net. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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