connect_pins

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavior about Manhattan routing and the fact that it combines internal steps, but it does not disclose potential side effects like modifying the schematic file, creating duplicate wires, or failure conditions.

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 a structured Args block. It front-loads the purpose, uses minimal words, and 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?

Given that an output schema exists (true), the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, composite behavior, and all parameters. It lacks mention of error handling or constraints, but overall it is complete enough for a composite tool.

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%, but the description's Args section fully explains every parameter with examples (e.g., ref1: 'First component reference (e.g. "U1")') and notes that schematic_path is optional with a default behavior. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Connect two component pins with Manhattan (L-shaped) wire routing.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like add_wires by emphasizing the L-shaped routing and composite nature.

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 line 'Combines get_pin_positions + coordinate math + add_wires into one call' provides clear context that this tool is for high-level pin-to-pin connections using refs and pin names. While it implies when to use it, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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