pinout_get

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

With no annotations, the description does the work of establishing this as a read-only inspection of live state, and the sync_ioc mention implies a live-vs-saved distinction that is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about whether an open project/session is required, how large pinouts are handled, or any failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one filtering behavior worth calling out. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the gist of the return (pins with current signals) but leaves the entry shape and the live-vs-saved relationship to sibling tools (ioc_get, ioc_compare) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to resolve by trial.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for only_configured by naming exactly what gets dropped (Reset_State/Power pins), which is more precise than the schema's "Only pins that carry a signal". sync_ioc is left to 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 ("Read the live pinout") and even quotes the equivalent CLI command `get pinout`, plus what is returned ("every pin with its current signal"). It is clearly distinct from mutators like pin_set/pin_reset, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related read-only siblings such as pin_functions or ioc_get.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of "live" pinout and the sync_ioc note hint that this reads in-memory state rather than the saved .ioc, but the description never says when to use this instead of ioc_get or pin_functions. No preconditions (e.g. project must be open) or exclusions are stated.

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