Logos2 原语查询

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and meets it by disclosing output content per mode: ports/parameters/instantiation template, category list, keyword recall, and summary. It signals structured output; minor gaps are unspecified precedence if multiple selectors are combined.

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 compact, front-loaded with the resource and modes, and uses semicolon separators so the mapping is immediately parseable. No repeated or redundant phrasing appears; even '结构化、省 token' adds useful output-format and efficiency context.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation lookup, the description covers the main behaviors, all category values, and the no-argument fallback; the schema covers parameter-level details. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though combination precedence such as name+query is not spelled out.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: it specifies what name returns, enumerates the full category list, and defines the no-argument fallback. It does not restate the mode parameter, which is already documented 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 opens with the specific action '查 Logos2 原语库' and pins the resource to gtp_lib.v and 153 GTP_* primitives. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fpga_ip_lookup or fpga_doc_search by scoping to primitive-level port/parameter/template lookup.

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 gives explicit guidance per invocation style: name for exact lookup, category for class listing, query for keyword recall, and no args for category summary. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the narrow resource scope and mode-specific conditions provide clear context.

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