find_adc_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose whether it queries hardware or uses static data, nor any limitations or error behavior. For a simple lookup tool, this may be adequate, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 with a clear heading, bulleted use cases, and separate Args/Returns sections. The Args/Returns lines are somewhat redundant with the schema but do not harm conciseness. Could be slightly tighter by omitting those.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, parameter, and use cases. The agent has enough context to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with description for board_type. The description repeats the parameter info ('board_type: Development board type') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists all pins that support ADC input, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'pins that support ADC input'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_i2c_pins and find_pwm_pins by focusing on analog input capability.

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 lists use cases (sensors, potentiometers, battery monitoring, analog signals) which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparison to siblings, but the use cases implicitly guide selection.

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