Kicad List Footprints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real context beyond the schema: matches follow the 'Library:FootprintName' format and the response returns at most `limit` lib_ids. However, it omits whether the call is read-only (safe assumption but undeclared), which libraries are searched, and what an empty query does.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause carries information (search scope, match format, return cap) with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers scope, match format, and result cap. It is nearly complete, lacking only edge-case behavior such as an empty query default and which library set is searched.

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, and it largely does: it explains the query matching format ('Library:FootprintName') and clarifies that `limit` caps the number of returned lib_ids. Both of the two parameters gain meaning beyond their bare names, though exact limit bounds and empty-string behavior remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (KiCad footprint libraries), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like kicad_pcb_add_footprint or kicad_list_symbols. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only routing hint is implicit in the name and the word 'Search'; an agent gets no instruction on when this is preferable to other listing tools.

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