get_pin

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action 'Get' and the output, but does not explicitly confirm that it is read-only, describe side effects, or note any permissions or error behaviors. The description adds little beyond the basic operation itself.

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, efficient sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward get operation.

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?

Although an output schema exists (covering return values), the description does not explain the domain-specific term 'resolved electrical net' or provide any parameter context. It also omits edge-case behavior or error conditions. For a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the meaning of 'reference' and 'pin_number'. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to infer their semantics solely from the parameter names. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'Get' and the specific resource 'one component pin', and explains the result includes its 'resolved electrical net'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_components or get_component, which focus on components, and list_nets/get_net, which focus on nets. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool name and description imply it is for fetching a single pin's net, but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to trace_signal or get_net. Usage is inferred from context rather than explicitly stated.

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