component_pin_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that this is a read-only reporting operation through the verb 'Report'. However, it does not disclose coordinate system, units, behavior when a component is not placed, or other side-effect-free details beyond the verb's implication.

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 filler. Every clause earns its place: the resource, the action, and the purpose are all present.

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 two-parameter query tool, the description covers the basic intent and purpose, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and usage guidance, so an agent may still need to infer how to populate the arguments or when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. 'reference' and 'schematic_path' are understandable from their names and the phrase 'placed component', yet the description adds no explicit meaning about formats, required context, or how they affect the reported coordinates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('pin coordinates of a placed component'), and the stated purpose of drawing wires makes the function evident. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as trace_connections or list_components, but the coordinate-reporting function is distinguishable by content.

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 purpose clause 'so wires can be drawn to exactly the right points' implies the tool should be used before wiring, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. There is no stated exclusion or condition routing the agent to a sibling tool.

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