Footprint details from a .kicad_mod file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the behavioral note that footprint_path is optional and falls back to a configured default. However, it does not elaborate on error handling or other runtime behaviors, so it neither fully leverages nor contradicts 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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence serves a role. The misleading 'Optional' label, though, detracts from overall quality and prevents a perfect score.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covers return values and safety, reducing the burden on the description. Still, the description misses usage context and contains a param requiredness contradiction, making it only minimally complete for a one-parameter read-only 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?

The description adds meaning by identifying footprint_path as a path to a .kicad_mod file and mentioning an optional default. However, it directly contradicts the input schema, which marks footprint_path as required. This inconsistency is a significant flaw, especially since schema coverage is 0% and the description was expected to fully compensate.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pad and outline details for a footprint .kicad_mod file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_footprint_pads or get_footprint_bounds, which focus on specific subsets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does and describes the argument, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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