kicad.list_footprints

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical prerequisite (open project required) and output content (includes positions and layers). Does not explicitly state read-only nature or error conditions, but 'List' implies safe operation.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Prerequisite front-loaded in brackets, followed by clear action and return value description. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with output schema, description provides sufficient context: prerequisite stated, scope defined ('all'), and key output fields identified ('positions and layers'). No gaps requiring additional documentation.

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?

Zero parameters present, establishing baseline of 4 per scoring rules. Schema coverage is trivially 100% for empty object.

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?

Specific verb 'List' with resource 'footprints on the PCB' and scope 'all'. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_footprints' (implies filtering vs listing all) and 'list_components' (PCB footprints vs schematic components).

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite '[Requires open project]' indicating when the tool can be used. Lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., does not mention using 'search_footprints' for filtered queries), but the prerequisite provides clear usage context.

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