list_footprints

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context ('open board', positions in millimetres) but does not disclose limit behavior, return format, or ordering. Adequate for a simple read-oriented list, but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase adds information—no filler or repetition.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, board scope, filtering capabilities, and unit details. Minor gap: no mention of limit behavior or default count, but overall sufficient.

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 has no property descriptions, and the description compensates by explaining reference ('R*') and value ('10k') with glob examples. However, the 'limit' parameter is left undocumented, so coverage is partial.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List footprints on the open board' explicitly states what it does. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying footprints (vs tracks/vias, zones, schematic symbols) and board context.

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?

Provides clear context: operates on the open board and supports filtering by reference/value with glob patterns. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the filter examples give actionable guidance on when to use its features.

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