standalone_signals

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

The description discloses that the tool works offline from bundled MCU XML and reports current bindings, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it still does not clarify permissions, output shape, or how it behaves when project_id is absent.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose and the offline source are both stated immediately.

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 simple read/list tool, the description covers what is returned at a high level: available signals and current binding. Still, there is no output schema, and details about the optional signal/project_id parameters and project-context behavior remain unclear.

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 all three parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list signals a pin can carry and show its current binding. It adds useful scope with 'offline, from the bundled MCU xml,' but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as pin_functions, pinout_get, or standalone_pin.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like pin_functions or standalone_pin. The offline data-source note implies a context, but it does not state when this tool should be chosen or avoided.

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