get_mcu_pinmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action ('Return a compact pin-to-net map') but does not mention side effects, error cases, or what 'compact' implies about the output. It does not address whether the operation is read-only (likely) or what happens if the reference is invalid or not found.

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?

A single, densely worded sentence that states the key action and target resource without any filler. It is front-loaded with the primary outcome and appropriately brief for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 is simple (one parameter), the description is still incomplete. It lacks usage context (e.g., current schematic dependency) and fails to clarify parameter semantics. While an output schema exists (which may cover return format), the description does not address when to invoke this tool among siblings, leaving the agent with ambiguity.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'reference' parameter beyond the tool's context. It implicitly suggests the parameter is a component reference designator, but it gives no format, example, or clarification about how to obtain it. The description adds minimal value over the parameter name.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('pin-to-net map for an MCU or any multi-pin component'). It distinguishes the tool's scope from generic component details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools like get_pin or get_component, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites (e.g., that a schematic must be open), or when to prefer other sibling tools like trace_signal or validate_pinmap. Only the implicit behavior is stated.

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