mcu_pin_functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the data source (MCU XML, no engine required), which implies it works without an open project, but says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or whether the MCU must be known/loaded.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and where it comes from. The final sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but there is no 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks detail on the return shape (rows? grouped by pin? function names?) and on preconditions. The description identifies the resource but not enough of the contract for a fully confident first call.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds one meaningful nuance — that `pin` matches as a substring rather than an exact name — but says nothing further about `mcu` (e.g. RefName resolution behavior) beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: an alternate-function table for an MCU, read directly from the MCU XML rather than via the engine. This differentiates it from engine-based siblings like pin_functions and pin_set, though the phrasing 'Use get functions/ set pin via the engine' is compressed enough that the sibling names are only implied.

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 final clause hints at the when-to-use boundary ('for live availability' go through the engine), which is the right idea. But 'get functions/ set pin' is ambiguous shorthand and there is no explicit statement of when this XML-based tool is preferred (e.g. offline, no loaded project).

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