lib_search_footprints

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description merely restates the search action without disclosing details like return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or wildcard 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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repetition of the tool name.

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 with two parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the lack of explanation for 'library_filter' and absence of usage guidance create a gap. The description is minimally adequate for a basic search but does not fully support correct invocation in all intended contexts.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only implicitly explains 'query' as the footprint name. It does not explain the 'library_filter' parameter at all, leaving its purpose and usage unclear. For a two-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description should compensate more by clarifying both parameters.

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 the tool searches footprint libraries by footprint name, which is a specific verb (search) with a specific resource (footprint libraries) and a specific filter (by name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lib_search_components, which searches components, and lib_list_footprints, which lists all 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as when to prefer lib_search_components or lib_get_footprint_info. The phrase 'search footprint libraries' implies usage but offers no explicit context or alternative recommendations.

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