Get KiCad Symbol & Footprint

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the slow response time (up to 45s), specifies the source (SamacSys ComponentSearchEngine), and explains the return format (raw file contents as text). Annotations cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints, but the description complements these with practical constraints and data source details without contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by key details (source, scope, output format), warnings, usage guidelines, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (external API integration, slow operation, multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and output details, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing to rely solely on structured fields.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: 'query' is defined as an MPN to search for with examples, and 'part_id' is described as a CSE part ID from previous results that skips search. It also clarifies the relationship ('One of query or part_id must be provided'), adding crucial semantics not in the schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Downloads') and resources ('KiCad schematic symbol and PCB footprint', 'raw .kicad_sym and .kicad_mod file contents'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it works for any manufacturer's part via SamacSys ComponentSearchEngine, unlike JLCPCB-focused tools like jlc_get_part.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you specifically need KiCad symbol/footprint files') and when not to ('For checking if an EasyEDA footprint exists, use jlc_get_part instead'). It also mentions performance considerations ('slow, up to 45s response time') and prerequisites ('One of query or part_id must be provided'), offering clear alternatives and exclusions.

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