list_footprints

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral context: positions in millimeters relative to board origin, the KiCAD Y-axis convention, and valid layer names. This helps the agent anticipate output semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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 composed of four informative sentences, each adding value: the listing action, coordinate system, layer filtering, and follow-up usage. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy with the schema, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format details are not required. The description covers the essential behavior, coordinates, layer filtering, and downstream usage, making it complete for a read-only listing 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 coverage is 100% – the filter_layer parameter's description already includes the valid layer values. The tool description does not add new meaning specific to the parameter beyond reinforcing the optional filter and the fact that omitting it lists all layers, so a baseline score of 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 opens with 'Lists all footprints (components) on the PCB board' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the exact attributes (positions, rotation angles, layers, pad counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_nets and list_tracks.

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?

It provides context by stating the optional layer filter and lists valid layer values, plus explains how to use returned reference designators in follow-up tool calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative like get_footprint for single-component details.

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