sch_search_component

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context about offline/online modes but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only) or side effects. The search action is inherently non-destructive, but the description could be more transparent about the impact.

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?

Two sentences with no superfluous information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, modes, and output format. However, it lacks details about possible result sets (multiple results, no results) and does not mention pagination behavior of the limit parameter. Overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers both parameters, but the description adds semantic context for the query parameter (MPN, LCSC id, value, description) and implicitly describes the limit parameter's purpose. This adds value beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches for components using EasyEDA libraries, distinguishes between offline and online modes, and specifies the return value (uuid and libraryUuid). It differentiates from sibling tools like sch_get_all_components (list all) and sch_place_component (place).

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 implies usage for finding components before placement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sch_get_all_components for listing all). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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