前端文档速查

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load. It does usefully disclose two traits: the index is offline (no network dependency) and each result includes an official doc link, which tells the agent what it gets back. It says nothing about coverage limits, result caps, or failure behavior when a term is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (offline, four libraries) and the return shape (summary plus official link) both land immediately.

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 three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and return content adequately. Gaps remain around the default/maximum result count and what happens when a query matches nothing, which matter for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 33%: query has an example-rich description and lib is a self-evident enum, but limit has no description and its default is never stated. The description's enumeration of the four libraries reinforces the lib enum and adds framing, but it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 verb (离线检索) and resource (常用 API 要点摘要) restricted to four named frontend libraries, which lets an agent tell it apart from a generic doc fetcher. However, it never names the sibling dev_docs_get, so the split between summary search and doc retrieval has to be inferred.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like dev_docs_get present, an agent gets no explicit signal about which tool to pick for a given lookup.

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