lib_inspect_cse_zip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that nothing is extracted, that it runs in pure Python without Altium, that it flags path-traversal members as 'suspicious', and it enumerates the failure conditions (missing file, not a zip, no .SchLib/.PcbLib).

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 purpose sentence and the inspect-vs-extract rule before any background. The roadmap/stage-5 prose and the explicit Returns block are somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, but they do not obscure the actionable content.

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-only inspection tool, everything needed to call it correctly is present: input semantics, non-destructive behavior, the follow-up tool, and the success/failure payload shapes. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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 0% and the single property is bare, but the description compensates with 'zip_path: Absolute path to the downloaded zip', which adds both format (absolute) and provenance (the downloaded CSE archive). Slight gap: no guidance on relative paths or Windows/Unix path form.

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 and resource ('Identify the library members of a Component Search Engine zip') and immediately grounds it in a concrete domain object (SamacSys/CSE download containing .SchLib, .PcbLib, STEP). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling lib_extract_cse_zip, which performs the actual staging step.

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 sequences usage: 'Inspect first, then stage the files with lib_extract_cse_zip.' That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, so the agent knows this is the non-destructive pre-check rather than the extraction.

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