list_footprints

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 discloses that the operation targets the open PCB and that filters use case-insensitive substring matching, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, side effects, permissions, or pagination/limits. For a simple list query this is adequate but not rich.

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 core purpose and then structured as a short Args block. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy, though the formatting is plain and could be slightly tighter.

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. The description adequately explains the three input parameters and the tool's scope, but it omits usage guidance and sibling differentiation, which are relevant given the large number of related listing tools.

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 for all three parameters. It explains reference_filter as a case-insensitive substring match on the reference with examples, value_filter as a match on component value, and include_pads as adding pad details (number, net, position). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema titles, though defaults are already 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List footprints on the open PCB.' It is clear what the tool does and the scope is limited to the active board, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_footprint or list_pads.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_footprint, list_pads, or get_items_by_net. The description only implies usage through the verb 'List' and does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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