eda_lib_footprint_get_render_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type (Promise<Blob | undefined>), which hints that undefined may be returned when the image is unavailable, but it provides no other behavioral context: no side effects, no error conditions, no note about whether this is a read-only fetch, and no guidance on handling the Blob. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the signature, but it repeats '封装渲染图' in both the purpose line and the returns line. The mix of an English code signature with Chinese labels, plus the redundant 'returns' line, makes it less clean than it could be. Still, there is minimal waste overall.

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?

The description does not explain how to construct the 'args' array from the shown source object, which is a critical operational detail for actually invoking the tool. It also omits any mention of the optional windowId parameter and what happens when the footprint is missing or rendering fails. For a straightforward read operation, an agent would likely struggle to map the signature to the required array format.

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 schema's 'args' property is a generic array with items '{}', so it conveys no per-parameter meaning. The description compensates by spelling out the source object as { footprintUuid, libraryUuid }, which is helpful. However, it only gives the structure, not the semantic role of each UUID, and it introduces ambiguity by showing a single object parameter instead of explaining how it maps to the 'args' array expected by the MCP wrapper.

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 a specific verb and resource: '获取封装渲染图' (get footprint render image) and provides the exact function signature. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the many library tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly contrast with the analogous eda_lib_symbol_get_render_image.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention that eda_lib_symbol_get_render_image exists for symbol renderings, nor does it state any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., that the footprint/library UUIDs must be valid). Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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