lib_get_footprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Enumerate" and the return-shape details imply a read-only listing operation, and it discloses that it walks the library via LibraryIterator_Create, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, performance, or error behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by useful context and Args/Returns sections. The implementation detail about LibraryIterator_Create and the explicit Returns block are somewhat redundant with the output schema, but the description remains efficient overall.

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?

For a simple read/enumeration tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource type, parameter default, and return shape. It is nearly complete, though without annotations it could do more to explicitly confirm read-only behavior and describe error/permission conditions.

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 0%, so the description is the only meaningful source for the single parameter. It explains that library_path is optional, that it is a .PcbLib path to focus first, and that it defaults to the focused document, which adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Enumerate every footprint in a PcbLib." It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling lib_get_components by identifying itself as the PcbLib counterpart for SchLibs, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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 gives clear usage context by tying the tool to PcbLib footprint enumeration and naming lib_get_components as the SchLib equivalent. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives such as lib_search, lib_get_component_details, or lib_get_footprint_primitives, nor does it state exclusions.

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