eda_lib_classification_get_all_classification_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the return type and deprecation status, but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe any other behavioral traits such as permissions or error conditions. The 'getAll' prefix implies non-mutating behavior, but that is left to inference.

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 relatively compact but contains redundancy: 'deprecated: since EDA v3.2; dropped EDA v3.3' and '[已弃用]' say the same thing, and '获取所有分类信息组成的树' is repeated by 'returns: 分类信息组成的树结构数据'. The code signature is valuable, but the text could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 deprecated tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the return shape and deprecation info, which is reasonable. However, it lacks a recommended replacement or migration path, and does not elaborate on the meaning of libraryUuid or libraryType. Given it is a deprecated read operation, it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 exposes a generic 'args' array, so the signature 'libraryUuid: string, libraryType: ELIB_LibraryType' in the description is essential. It names the parameters, their order, and their types, compensating for the opaque schema and enabling the agent to construct the args array correctly.

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 the action explicitly: retrieve the complete classification tree ('获取所有分类信息组成的树') and includes the full API signature. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that fetch a single classification by index or UUID, and the tree structure return type is specified.

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 deprecation note ('deprecated: since EDA v3.2; dropped EDA v3.3') is a clear signal that this tool should not be used, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not mention any alternative tool or describe when the tool might still be needed (e.g., for backward compatibility), so the guidance is incomplete.

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