pinmap_get

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 discloses what the output contains (mux map, caveats, conflict hints), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that this is a side-effect-free read operation or how large/verbose the raw JSON may be.

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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, then usage conditions. No wasted phrasing; the only minor cost is that the parameter format is left unstated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the payload. With one simple param and clear triggers, it is nearly complete — the gap is the undocumented 'mcu' value format.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required 'mcu' parameter has no documentation in the schema or the description. The text says '指定 MCU' but gives no format or naming convention, so an agent must guess the acceptable identifier.

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: outputs the raw pinmap JSON for a specified MCU, and enumerates the returned content (full pin mux map + caveats + common conflict hints). This clearly separates it from the sibling checkers (pin_check) and listers (pinmap_list).

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?

Gives two explicit trigger conditions ('after pin_check reports an error', 'to show the user the mapping basis') and names the sibling pin_check as the alternative. No explicit 'when-not' clause, but the context is unambiguous.

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