lib_get_footprint_info

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not state what happens if the footprint is not found, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent for a simple getter.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. However, it is slightly too brief, omitting usage context that could fit without bloating the length.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks usage guidelines and behavioral disclaimers (e.g., read-only confirmation, error cases). The empty annotations leave significant context holes for an agent deciding whether to call this tool versus alternatives, making it incomplete for the full context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'footprint' (as the target entity) but does not explain the role of the 'library' parameter or any value formats. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description adds no extra semantic meaning.

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 'Return details for a single footprint' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like lib_list_footprints (list all) and lib_get_footprint_3d_model (specific 3D model data). It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 such as lib_search_footprints or lib_list_footprints. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or alternative tools for broader queries, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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