get_footprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not state whether it returns cached or live data, what happens if the reference is not found, or what errors may occur. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal.

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 front-loaded with the essential action and then uses a compact per-argument list. It is appropriately sized, though the docstring-style formatting is slightly less polished than a flowing description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should say more about what 'full detail' includes and what happens on invalid references, leaving it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'reference' with an example ('U1') and says 'include_pads' includes pads, which is slightly beyond the raw property titles. However, it does not explain the default behavior (true) or the format/shape of returned pads, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Return full detail for a single footprint by reference designator.' It distinguishes a detail-getter from the sibling list_footprints and get_footprint_geometry, though it does not explicitly name those neighbors.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like list_footprints and get_footprint_geometry present, the description should say when to use this detail-retrieval tool instead of listing footprints or fetching only geometry, but it offers no such routing.

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