eda_lib_footprint_create

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a create operation (mutation) but provides no details about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the footprint name already exists. It mentions a return value (UUID) but nothing else about the operation's behavior.

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 concise (one line) but mixes English signature and Chinese text, making it less clear. The purpose is not front-loaded; it appears only in the Chinese phrase. It lacks a clear separation of purpose, parameters, and return value, though it is not verbose.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides the return type but does not explain what each parameter represents, the expected format of classification, or any constraints. It also does not mention that the library must exist or whether the operation can fail. The absence of annotations increases the burden, which is not met.

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 includes the full function signature with parameter names and types, which adds meaning beyond the minimal schema (which only has args and windowId). However, it does not explain the meaning of classification, description, or otherProperty, leaving ambiguity about how to fill them. It partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter detail.

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 tool creates a footprint ('创建封装') and provides a function signature with parameter names. It distinguishes from siblings like eda_lib_footprint_modify and eda_lib_footprint_copy by the verb 'create'. However, the Chinese phrase is redundant with the tool name and the description does not explicitly mention the resource context (library).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid libraryUuid) or conditions that would favor create over modify/copy. The only usage context is implicit in the name.

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