get_pin_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it accounts for rotation/mirror and describes the default schematic_path behavior. It does not cover missing-component errors, but the safety profile is well covered by annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and followed by a minimal Arg list. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential purpose, rotation/mirror handling, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit error-case or sibling-tool guidance, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: reference format ('U1', 'R1') and schematic_path's optionality and default behavior. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema properties.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('absolute pin positions for a placed component'), and adds a crucial qualifier ('accounts for rotation/mirror') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_symbol_pins. It unambiguously conveys what the tool does.

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 provides clear context: it is for placed components and notes the optional schematic_path behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is evident enough for a read tool. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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