lib_probe_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explicitly states 'Nothing is written' and 'Read-only', and explains the root-cause model (leftover names live in child primitives) that motivates the call. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations would otherwise supply.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then motivates it, then lists Args and Returns in a scannable structure. Slightly verbose in the middle explanatory paragraph, but every sentence adds real information.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description still summarizes the return payload (footprint, description, height_mils, primitive_count, texts with object_id/text), so an agent knows whether this tool answers its question. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 must compensate; it documents both parameters, including the non-obvious default that library_path falls back to the focused library. Only the exact format of library_path (whether a directory or .PcbLib file) is slightly ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read-only dump of a PcbLib footprint's name-bearing fields') and explains the domain nuance that Name and Pattern are the same property, so the agent understands exactly what is returned. Clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like lib_rename_footprint.

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?

'Use this to locate where an old name persists after a rename' gives a concrete diagnostic trigger, and the explanation of why metadata fields can't hold the stale name steers the agent here rather than to a rename/audit tool. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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