eda_lib_footprint_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return type (Promise<ILIB_FootprintItem | undefined>) and the possibility of undefined, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects (though it is a getter, this is implied), permission requirements, or behavior when libraryUuid is omitted. The disclosure is minimal beyond the bare signature.

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 very concise, with the signature front-loaded and the purpose stated in two short phrases. However, there is minor redundancy: 'returns: 封装属性' repeats the return type already conveyed by the Promise<ILIB_FootprintItem> signature. Still, it is compact and well-structured.

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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter signature. However, it lacks context on when to use it (e.g., when you have a footprint UUID), what the return object ILIB_FootprintItem contains (beyond 'properties'), and the semantics of the optional libraryUuid parameter (e.g., whether it narrows the search). Given low complexity, this is a minimum viable description but not fully complete.

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 explicitly lists both parameters with their types and optionality (footprintUuid: string, libraryUuid?: string), which is critical because the input schema only describes the wrapper 'args' array and 'windowId' without defining the actual semantic parameters. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter-level description, enabling the agent to construct the args array correctly.

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 states the specific verb 'get' and the resource 'footprint' (封装), and says it retrieves all properties. This is clear and distinguishes it from modification or search tools at a basic level, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getters like eda_lib_footprint_get_render_image or eda_lib_footprint_search_by_properties.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires a footprint UUID, nor does it indicate that search or other lookup methods might be more appropriate for different scenarios. The description provides no usage context or exclusions.

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