pcb_get_component_pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing an upstream EDA bug (padNumber reads null for API-placed components until doc reopen), which materially affects how an agent interprets results.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, return shape second, caveat last. The caveat is longer but is the kind of detail that prevents a wrong conclusion, so it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the explicit field list is a valuable substitute for return-value documentation, and the SDK bug note covers a real edge case. Only the missing when-to-use/alternative guidance keeps it short of complete for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 100%, so document, instance_id, limit, filter and fields are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the primitiveId input and then lists RETURN fields (primitiveId, padNumber, net, layer, x, y), which are not parameters, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 all pins/pads of a specific component') plus the identifying key ('by its primitive ID'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It never names a sibling (e.g. sch_get_component_pins for the schematic side, or pcb_get_primitives_by_id), leaving the PCB-vs-schematic routing to inference from the tool name.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you have a component primitive ID and want its pads. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to the schematic or generic-primitive alternatives that appear in the sibling list.

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