get_pin_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by noting that the tool accounts for rotation and mirror transformations, which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, then a succinct list of arguments. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. The essential information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the main purpose and arguments. An output schema exists to detail return values, so the description need not list them. However, it omits mention of behavior when the component is not placed or the path is invalid, which would be helpful but not critical.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must carry the burden. It adds that 'reference' is a component reference (e.g., U1) and 'schematic_path' is a path to a .kicad_sch file. This provides basic context but lacks details on format or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool retrieves absolute pin positions for a placed component, emphasizing that it accounts for rotation and mirror. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_symbol_pins which deals with symbols rather than placed components.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_symbol_pins or get_footprint_pads. While it implies usage after component placement, there is no statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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