get_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only details the output content (pads, net, position, layer). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior for unknown references. The 'get' prefix implies read-only, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 immediately conveys the scope and contents. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description covers the returned content but lacks details on the 'reference' parameter format and the exact return structure of pads (e.g., coordinate system, layer names). Without an output schema or annotations, this is a minimum viable description but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and return expectations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'reference' parameter. It is unclear that 'reference' likely means the footprint's reference designator (e.g., R1, U2). The description mentions 'one footprint' but does not connect it to the parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving full details for a single footprint, including pads with net, position, and layer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_footprints, which list footprints, and get_board_summary, which provides board-level info.

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 usage for a specific footprint ('one footprint') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with list_footprints. It offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the context to be inferred.

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