select_footprints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'selects footprints' but does not clarify whether the selection replaces or adds to the current selection, nor does it mention prerequisites like an open board or potential side effects.

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 (9 words) that front-loads the verb and purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details about selection behavior (replace vs. add) and potential error conditions. Compared to sibling tools, it leaves some ambiguity.

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 adds meaning to the 'references' parameter by specifying they are 'reference designators'. This clarifies what the strings represent beyond the schema's 'array of strings'. However, it could be more precise about expected format (e.g., 'R1, C3').

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 action (select), the resource (footprints), and the selection criteria (by reference designators). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_to_selection' and 'clear_selection', but does not explicitly differentiate from other selection modifiers such as 'remove_from_selection'.

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 implies when to use the tool (when selecting footprints by refdes), but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'add_to_selection' for adding to an existing selection.

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