find_pwm_pins

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool lists pins with timer information, implying a read-only query without side effects. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or mention any permissions or constraints. Basic transparency is achieved, but could be improved.

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?

Description is concise, starting with the main action in the first sentence. It uses bullet points for use cases and separate Args/Returns sections, providing a clear structure. The bullet list is relevant but slightly redundant; overall, it is well-organized and efficient.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown but available), the description covers purpose, parameter, and return type adequately. The return description ('List of PWM-capable pins with timer information') is sufficient, though without seeing the output schema, the agent can infer the output structure. Completeness is high for a simple tool.

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 100%, meaning the schema already describes the single parameter (board_type as 'Type of development board'). The description only repeats 'Development board type' in the Args section, adding no new semantics 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all PWM-capable pins, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'pins that support PWM output'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_adc_pins or find_i2c_pins, which target different pin types.

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?

Description implies usage by listing common PWM applications (LED dimming, motor speed control, servo control), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude scenarios. Sibling tools exist for other pin types (ADC, I2C, SPI), but no direct comparison is given.

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