Find unconnected schematic pins

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so agent knows it's safe. Description adds that it identifies unconnected pins, but doesn't detail pagination behavior (allPages default true), output format, or performance implications. 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?

Single sentence, no waste. However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness. Front-loaded with key information.

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 five parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output structure, behavior of allPages and other flags, or how to interpret results. Incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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?

Only one of five parameters (includePowerPins) has a description. Schema coverage is low (20%), and the description doesn't explain limit, allPages, timeoutMs, or includeRaw. Schema defaults exist but meaning is not clarified.

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 states the tool identifies schematic pins without a confirmed net, which is a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like easyeda_find_net and easyeda_find_component, though it could be clearer against easyeda_verify_connections.

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 tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for finding unconnected pins specifically, while easyeda_verify_connections might be for broader verification. Missing usage context.

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