lib_footprint_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the scope of the result (metadata only, not source) and where the source actually lives, which is a behavioral boundary not encoded in annotations or schema.

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, zero filler: the first states purpose and return payload, the second routes to the correct tool for source retrieval. Front-loaded and tightly scoped.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields (uuid, library, name, classification, description). Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (including instance_id and libraryUuid defaults) are documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by UUID' and does not add format or resolution semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get a library footprint's metadata') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from lib_symbol_get and from lib_footprint_open_in_editor. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent that this tool does not return source, and prescribes the alternative workflow (lib_footprint_open_in_editor + document_get_source). It gives a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that condition, though it does not state exclusions for the sibling it is contrasted with.

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