live_component

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds meaningful context by stating the result reflects unsaved editor edits and the current editor view. It does not contradict the annotation and gives agents a clear expectation that output may differ from the saved board.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('including unsaved edits') is right at the end but still clear. Every word earns its place.

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?

Output schema and readOnlyHint cover return shape and safety, and the description conveys the tool's live, unsaved-edits semantics. However, the lack of parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance leaves an agent guessing about invocation details.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what 'ref' or 'path' mean or how they identify a footprint. Mentioning 'footprint' gives a minimal domain hint, but the agent cannot tell which parameter is the footprint identifier or what 'path' refers to.

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 identifies the resource (a footprint) and the data it reports (position, rotation, side), and clarifies it reflects the live editor state rather than a saved board. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get/return,' but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from siblings that query saved/board data.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'as shown in the editor (including unsaved edits)': choose this tool when you need the in-memory/unsaved state of a footprint. It does not name alternatives such as get_component or state when not to use it, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit.

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