eda_lib_classification_get_index_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical behavioral fact that the tool is deprecated since EDA v3.2 and dropped in v3.3 — genuinely useful. However, beyond the deprecation and the signature's '| undefined' return hint, there is no detail on side effects, error behavior, or what the returned index contains. The deprecation note is a real positive, but coverage stops there.

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 signature is usefully front-loaded, but the description is cluttered: the deprecation is stated twice ('deprecated: since EDA v3.2...' and the trailing '[已弃用]'), and there is a redundant 'returns: 分类索引' line that restates the signature's return type. Mixed English/Chinese with duplicated markers makes it messy rather than efficient.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. The deprecation warning and the signature's 'undefined' possibility are covered, but what ILIB_ClassificationIndex contains, what ELIB_LibraryType values exist, and how libraryUuid is obtained are all unexplained. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without external knowledge.

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 schema's args property only says 'JSON parameter array in official signature order', which is meaningless without the signature. The description supplies that: libraryUuid, libraryType, primaryClassificationName, and optional secondaryClassificationName, with types and the fact that one parameter is optional. This adds real value beyond the schema for a tool whose actual parameters are opaque.

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 operation: '获取指定名称的分类的分类索引' (get the classification index for a classification of the specified name), and provides the full function signature. It is distinguishable from the sibling eda_lib_classification_get_name_by_index (the reverse mapping), but it never explains what a 'classification index' is, and the purpose statement largely restates what the tool name already implies.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes get_name_by_index, get_name_by_uuid, get_all_classification_tree, create_primary, and create_secondary, but the description names none of them or the conditions that would select one over another. The deprecation note implicitly discourages use but does not direct the agent to a replacement.

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