validate_pinmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the comparison action, without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what happens on mismatch, or how the 'reference' parameter affects behavior. The example explains input format but not the operational semantics, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise—two sentences—with the purpose front-loaded and a useful example included. There is no redundant content; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's input format and purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context. It doesn't explain what 'reference' refers to (likely a schematic or netlist identifier), what the output indicates (e.g., match/mismatch), or any necessary prerequisites. The example covers only the 'expected' parameter, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent attempting to use it correctly.

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 document parameters. It does explain 'expected' with a concrete example, clarifying that it maps pin names/numbers to net labels. However, 'reference' is completely undefined, leaving half the parameters without any semantic explanation, which is a notable gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compare firmware pin expectations with schematic nets.' It uses a specific verb ('compare') and identifies the resources involved, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_mcu_pinmap' which retrieves data rather than validating it. The example further clarifies the input format for 'expected'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for validation or specify conditions under which it should be preferred over sibling tools like 'get_mcu_pinmap' or 'trace_signal'. There is no when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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