Get wiring

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains why: `board` "switches the board first," disclosing a real side effect that an agent must know about before calling. It also goes beyond annotations by enumerating the diagnostics returned (pin conflicts, 5 V into 3.3 V pins, duplicate I²C addresses, ESP32 strapping/ADC2 pins) and the output formats produced. It stops short of saying whether the pin file is written to the project or merely returned.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core output description before the board-switching detail, and nearly every clause adds information an agent needs. It is dense — two very long sentences with heavy parenthetical stacking — which slightly hurts scannability.

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 description does the work of explaining return content: per-part pin destinations, rail power budgets, issue categories, and the pin-file artifact. The remaining ambiguity is whether that pin file is returned as text or written into the project, and how the board parameter interacts with an already-fitted body.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it spells out each enum value with concrete board identity (ESP32 DevKit V1, Arduino Uno R3, Raspberry Pi 4/5 40-pin header) plus the Pi-specific routing through an ADS1115 and CSI ribbon. It does not state what happens when `board` is omitted (presumably keep the current board), leaving the optional-parameter default implicit.

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 names a specific resource and its scope: the Wiring page for the fitted rover body, listing per-part pin mappings, rail power budget, detected issues, and a generated pin file. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_bom, get_firmware, and get_sensor_map, which cover different artifacts.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs real-hardware wiring after building the rover, and the `board` clause signals it can be used to switch targets. But there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against get_bom/get_firmware, and no statement of prerequisites such as whether a body must be fitted first.

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