pinmap_list

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 not state that this is a read-only lookup with no side effects, nor whether the list is static or reflects a live/local index. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool the behavior is largely self-evident, but the disclosure is thin.

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 what is listed and followed by the practical usage cue. No redundant restatement of the title or schema, and nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The one gap is the unspecified relationship to pinmap_get for retrieving details on a listed model.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema imposes no ambiguity; a baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-related content, but none is needed.

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 clear verb+resource: lists the MCU models contained in the pin knowledge base. An agent can tell it apart from generic list tools like board_list or component_list, but it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, pinmap_get, which presumably retrieves the pin map for one model.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool relative to a named sibling: use it before pin_check to verify whether a model is supported. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it gives no when-not condition or mention of pinmap_get as the follow-up step.

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