export_footprint_svg

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

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds useful context about accepted path types and the use of configured defaults. However, the inconsistency between the description claiming footprint_path is optional and the schema marking it required undermines behavioral clarity, and no mention is made of side effects like file creation beyond what the annotations imply.

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 compact and logically structured with an Args section. It avoids excessive verbosity, but the optionality error introduces a correctness issue that slightly detracts from the clarity of the structure.

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 relatively simple tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. Yet it fails to clarify the required nature of footprint_path, omits file naming or overwrite behavior, and doesn't mention that it writes a file. The mismatch between description and schema is a significant gap in completeness.

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?

The description provides additional meaning by specifying footprint_path accepts a .kicad_mod file or .pretty directory and output_dir is an output directory, which helps with a 0% schema description coverage. However, it incorrectly states footprint_path is optional when the schema designates it required, creating a dangerous contradiction that could cause the agent to omit a necessary parameter.

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 'Export footprint to SVG' with a specific verb, resource (footprint), and output format. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool export_symbol_svg by targeting footprints instead of symbols.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, offering no exclusions or preferred contexts. It misleadingly implies both arguments are optional, contradicting the schema that marks footprint_path as required, leaving the agent without reliable direction.

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