Get schematic component pins

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds that pins are returned with specific fields, but does not disclose pagination behavior (despite allPages parameter), performance characteristics, or any additional behavioral nuances. The description is consistent with annotations but adds only marginal value.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key output details. No extraneous words or sentences. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks usage context, parameter details for three of four parameters, and behavioral notes (e.g., pagination). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 only 25% (only the query parameter has a description). The description provides examples for query (e.g., U1, USB1) but does not explain allPages, timeoutMs, or includeRaw parameters. For a tool with 4 parameters and low schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'pins for a schematic component'. It specifies the included fields (pin number, name, position, net) and is distinct from sibling tools like easyeda_find_component or easyeda_trace_net, which focus on different aspects.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, leaving the agent without strategic direction.

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