sch_get_pin_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that positions are 'absolute', clarifying the output coordinate system beyond simple read-only behavior. No contradictions.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no filler. It avoids repeating schema information and directly communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse for a 6-parameter tool with no parameter documentation. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., symbol exists in library), coordinate reference, or rotation handling, leaving the agent to guess critical invocation details.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'symbol placement' without explaining x_mm/y_mm as origin coordinates, rotation units, or the role of `unit`. Parameter names are suggestive but not sufficient.

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's function with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('absolute pin positions') for a given symbol placement. It is distinct from sibling tools like sch_get_symbols or sch_get_bounding_boxes, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (after symbol placement) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is unambiguous, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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