list_unconnected_pins

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

Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it requires kicad-cli, auto-redirects to root schematic, and references an ERC report file via output_dir. It does not fully describe report-file lifecycle, but the added context is substantive beyond 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?

Three short logical blocks—action/dependency/behavior, then args—front-load the key information with no filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section is scannable.

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 an output schema exists, return-value details are not required; description covers dependency, root redirection, and all parameters. Minor omission of explicit alternative-tool guidance prevents a perfect score.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the Args section must carry the weight; it does by explaining each parameter's file format, optionality, and default behavior. The descriptions are sufficient but could note interactions (e.g., when project_path is needed) for a higher score.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List unconnected pins') and adds the method ('by running ERC and filtering results'), which clearly separates it from full-ERC and no-connect-list siblings. The name and description align tightly, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

It clearly states the kicad-cli prerequisite and explains the automatic root-schematic redirection with rationale, giving practical context for sub-sheet usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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