Symbol pins from the schematic's embedded library

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that it reads from lib_symbols and that schematic_path has a default, but it doesn't disclose behavior for missing symbols or the exact structure of returned pin info. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences and a focused Args list. Every sentence adds value, information is front-loaded, no emptiness.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the risk profile, the description adequately covers the simple two-parameter operation. It lacks guidance on interacting with sibling tools, but the core invocation is documented well.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters with an example for symbol_name and optional/default behavior for schematic_path. It gives useful semantics beyond the raw schema but doesn't specify the exact string format for symbol_name or path resolution.

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?

Description clearly uses verb 'Get' and specifies resource 'pin info for a symbol in the schematic's lib_symbols', distinguishing it from other schematic queries. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool get_pin_positions or clarify what 'pin info' includes (names/numbers vs. positions). Slight vagueness prevents a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_pin_positions or get_symbol_info. The description only states the operation and doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites. The optional schematic_path hint implies a context but doesn't provide explicit use-case guidance.

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