Get component pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by warning that the returned pinType field is unreliably authored and often "Undefined" even on real ICs, telling the agent not to trust it as ground truth — a caveat no structured field conveys.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and followed by the reliability caveat, with no filler. The enumeration of return fields partially overlaps the existing output schema, which is slight redundancy rather than waste.

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 already documents the return shape and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain returns in depth. It still adds the key pinType caveat, leaving only minor gaps (ID provenance, behavior on an invalid ID) that are not essential to correct invocation.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does: primitiveId is explained as identifying "a schematic component." It could add format details (where the ID comes from), but the core meaning of the parameter is supplied.

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 and resource ("Get ... pins for a schematic component") and enumerates exactly what is returned: primitive IDs, numbers, names, coordinates, no-connect state, pinType. This clearly separates it from easyeda_schematic_components (lists components) and easyeda_schematic_nets (nets), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 description scopes usage to "a schematic component by its primitive ID," which implies you need a component ID first, but it never states when to choose this over siblings such as easyeda_schematic_components or easyeda_schematic_net_detail, nor lists any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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