eda_lib_cbb_search

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

The description identifies a query-style operation and declares a Promise-returning list, which is adequate for a search tool. However, annotations are absent, and the description does not explain pagination defaults, filter-combination semantics, error behavior, or side effects beyond what the signature hints at.

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 contains no filler: a signature, a one-phrase purpose, and a return-value clarification. The signature is dense but earns its place because the input schema provides no per-parameter documentation.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain the shape of ILIB_CbbSearchItem, allowable classification values, pagination behavior, or when to prefer this over sibling search tools. A basic call can be inferred, but the definition is not complete enough for reliable correct invocation in ambiguous cases.

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 actual schema is only a generic args array plus windowId, so the description's type signature adds real value by naming all five parameters, their order, optional markers, and the ILIB_ClassificationIndex union type. It still leaves details like valid classification values and key/filter interaction unexplained, but it goes well beyond the generic 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 states '搜索复用模块' and provides a signature that makes clear this searches reusable CBB modules and returns a list of ILIB_CbbSearchItem. It is specific about verb and resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search tools such as eda_lib_symbol_search or eda_lib_footprint_search.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, nor any exclusions or context about the optional filters. An agent must infer usage from the name and signature, which is effectively no usage guidance.

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