eda_lib_3_dmodel_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the result may be undefined, implying lookup failure, and it explicitly says the tool returns properties rather than mutating anything. However, it does not explain error behavior, scope of 'all properties', or whether any side effects or permissions apply.

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 and front-loads the core signature and purpose. The second line 'returns: 3D 模型属性' is somewhat redundant with '获取所有属性', but it is short and does not significantly bloat the description.

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 low-complexity getter this is usable, but the lack of output schema and vague 'all properties' means the agent does not know the shape or content of the returned object. It also provides no example or clarification about omitting libraryUuid, leaving meaningful gaps 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?

The input schema only describes a generic args array and windowId; it does not describe modelUuid or libraryUuid. The description helps by providing the official signature with names, types, and optionality. Still, it never explains what libraryUuid means or how it affects lookup, so the added semantics are limited.

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 states a specific operation: 'lib_3DModel.get' / '获取 3D 模型的所有属性' (get all properties of a 3D model). The resource and verb are clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like eda_lib_3_dmodel_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_lib_3_dmodel_search, create, modify, or delete. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and signature.

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