find_i2c_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is a list operation returning I2C pin pairs (SDA/SCL) with notes, which is transparent. No behavioral traits like side effects or permissions are needed for a read-only query.

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 and well-structured: one sentence stating the purpose, a bullet list of use cases, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description fully explains the purpose, use cases, parameter, and return value. An output schema exists, so the return format does not need further detail in the description.

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 100% with only one parameter, board_type, which already has an enum description. The description adds 'Development board type' which matches the schema, but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists all pins supporting I2C communication, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'I2C pins'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_adc_pins and find_pwm_pins by specifying the protocol.

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 provides a bullet list of typical I2C usages (sensors, displays, etc.), giving context for when the tool might be needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, leaving the usage inference implicit.

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