get_footprint_geometry

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 lists the data returned but never states that it is a read-only/non-mutating call, nor anything about permissions, cost, or failure modes; the only behavioral hint is the implicit 'get'.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, then usage, then the arg; every sentence is functional. The 'Args:' block is slightly formal but not wasteful.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description supplies purpose, the one arg's meaning, and a usage trigger. The only omission is any behavioral/permission context, which for a non-annotated tool is a modest gap.

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 supply parameter meaning, and it does: it defines 'reference' as a reference designator and gives a concrete example ('U1'). That is more than the bare title in the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (one footprint) and enumerates the exact contents returned: position, rotation, side, courtyard box, and every pad with number/net/position/size. It is clearly a geometry-read tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_footprint or list_footprints.

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?

'Use this before placing or routing around a part' gives a concrete workflow context for when to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_footprint, get_bounding_box) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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