Component pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: error conditions ('Bridge may fail if designator missing or command errors'), prerequisites (active/focused PCB, designators must exist), and return format ('Bridge JSON with pin information'). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites, Errors), each contributing unique information. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with purpose, and free of unnecessary 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, errors, and a return format. However, the return description 'Bridge JSON with pin information' is somewhat vague and does not detail the exact fields returned, leaving minor ambiguity about the output structure.

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 input schema fully covers the only parameter (designators) with a description and example, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Parameters' section repeats the same information with a different example but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Pin-level data for selected components on the active PCB.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_all_nets and get_all_designators by focusing on per-component pin information.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states 'After designators are known; net names per pin, etc.,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, but the prerequisite of known designators is clearly conveyed.

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