lib_get_footprint_3d_model

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 only states the action without mentioning potential failure modes (e.g., empty path if no 3D model configured), read-only nature, or error handling. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, with no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter context. The purpose is clear and the operation is straightforward, but the absence of behavioral and parameter details means the description is only minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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 does not elaborate on the meanings or format of the `library` and `footprint` parameters. Since schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), the description should have compensated by clarifying what constitutes a valid library/footprint and how they relate to each other. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional value is added.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'configured 3D model path for a footprint', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like lib_get_footprint_info or lib_search_footprints. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's exact function.

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 or any context such as prerequisites. It simply states the function without explaining its role in a broader workflow, leaving usage to be inferred from the name.

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