sch_list_swappable_pins

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'candidate pins and units' adds useful context, but it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, or failure modes. It meets the minimum bar without being 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?

The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a single required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits any guidance on the component_ref parameter or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but leaves some ambiguity about invocation.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description never mentions component_ref or explains how it selects candidates. The only semantic hint is the parameter name and the schema title 'Component Ref,' which is insufficient for an agent to reliably know what value to provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('candidate pins and units'), and orients the action within a 'swap workflow.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sch_swap_pins and sch_swap_gates, which perform the swap itself.

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 phrase 'can participate in a swap workflow' provides clear context for when this tool is useful—as a discovery step before swapping. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended usage is evident.

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