lib_generate_footprint_ipc7351

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the side effect of saving a file, the default output path, and the return behavior (confirmation with file path or error). However, it does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing files, creates directories, or depends on a project context, which would improve transparency.

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 well-structured into clear sections: purpose, supported packages, Args, and Returns. While longer than a minimal two-sentence description, each element adds necessary value and there is no redundant or fluff content. The package list is extensive but informative for selection.

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?

Given the 10 parameters, empty annotations, and lack of schema descriptions, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, supported package types, all parameter semantics, output location, and return value. It does not enumerate every possible failure mode or prerequisite (e.g., existence of output_dir), but it is sufficient for correct tool invocation in most scenarios.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains every parameter in detail, including units, defaults, and special cases (e.g., body_w_mm defaulting to body_l_mm for QFP). This fully compensates for the missing schema documentation and makes parameter usage clear.

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 opens with 'Generate an IPC-7351B compliant KiCad footprint (.kicad_mod) and save it', which clearly states the specific verb (generate), resource (footprint), and output format. It also lists supported package families, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like lib_search_footprints or lib_create_custom_symbol.

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 indicates when to use the tool by listing supported packages and providing parameter explanations, giving a clear context for generating footprints per IPC-7351B. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the package list establishes a clear applicability boundary and the default behavior is well described.

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