get_footprint

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Retrieve detailed information' without specifying what that information includes, whether the operation is read-only, or any constraints (e.g., does it work for all footprint types?). The lack of details limits 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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action. Every word is necessary, with no wasted content. It is optimally concise.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema or annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about the return structure or any side effects. For a retrieval tool, knowing the output format would be beneficial, but the description meets minimum viability.

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 single parameter 'reference' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds semantic context by stating it's a 'reference designator', which clarifies its purpose. However, it doesn't provide format or examples, so the added value is moderate.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific footprint', along with the input method 'by its reference designator'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_footprint_bounding_box by implying comprehensive data retrieval, but lacks explicit differentiation from other get_ tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_footprint_bounding_box or list_footprints. The description does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision cues.

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