list_pcb_footprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by documenting that pcb_path is optional and that omitting it uses a configured default, which is beyond the annotation coverage.

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 minimal and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a single parameter arg block. Zero wasted words.

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-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. An output schema exists to describe return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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 schema only provides type and default for pcb_path with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining it is a path to a .kicad_pcb file, optional, and that omission uses a configured default. This is critical for correct usage.

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 'List all footprints on the PCB', with a specific verb (list) and resource (footprints on the PCB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_lib_footprints that list library footprints.

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 gives clear context that this tool operates on PCB footprints rather than library footprints, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction is implicit via the phrase 'on the PCB' and the sibling tool list.

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