dev_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: it loads the plugin into the editor, continuously monitors the console until an error log appears, returns error content on error, and returns success if timeout is reached without error. It also mentions the .eext file location convention and the timeout parameter's default. However, it does not disclose side effects of loading a plugin (e.g., whether it opens a new editor tab, whether it modifies project state, whether repeated calls stack listeners). For a tool that executes a plugin, this is a meaningful gap. The description does not contradict annotations (there are none).

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 a compact paragraph of 4 sentences. It front-loads the primary action and outcome, then provides file path guidance in the second sentence, usage scenario in the third, and timeout behavior in the fourth. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the file path hint from the main behavior), but it is efficient and not bloated. Minor deduction for the ambiguous construction '调试插件到嘉立创EDA' which could be misparsed.

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?

Given this is a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what it does, the file path convention, the timeout success condition, and the error-return behavior. It lacks details about the return format (exact error content structure) and whether the plugin is loaded once or reloaded each call, which could matter for repeated invocations. But overall it provides enough context for an agent to decide to call it and understand the outcome. Not a 5 because the ambiguity around the load-monitor lifecycle and return shape could lead to misuse.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for pluginPath by specifying the build/dist directory and .eext suffix, which goes beyond the schema's '插件文件的绝对路径' (absolute path to plugin file). It also mentions timeout default in the description but that's already in the schema. It does not add anything about browserPath beyond the schema's description. Given full schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the path convention hint is a small bonus but not enough to raise to 4.

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 a specific verb+resource: '调试插件到嘉立创EDA并持续监听控制台，直到出现 error 日志时返回错误内容' (debug plugin in JLC EDA and continuously monitor console, returning error content when error log appears). It distinguishes itself from siblings like import_plugin (which imports a plugin) and get_console_logs (which just retrieves logs) by specifying it loads and monitors for errors with timeout behavior. Some ambiguity remains in the term '调试插件' which could mean 'debug the plugin' or 'debug plugin (as a noun)', but the sentence structure and following details clarify it's about debugging a plugin by loading it and monitoring console output.

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 states it is '适用于需要自动捕获插件运行错误的调试场景' (suitable for debugging scenarios requiring automatic capture of plugin runtime errors). It gives a condition for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use get_console_logs for manual log retrieval, or import_plugin for simple loading without monitoring). However, the clear scenario description plus the file path precondition ('调用前请先确认 pluginPath 指向该目录下的 .eext 文件') provides practical usage guidance. Missing explicit exclusion of alternatives prevents a 5.

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