eda_lib_classification_get_name_by_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses deprecation (since v3.2, dropped in v3.3) and the return shape (primary/secondary names, possibly undefined) via the signature. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe error behavior beyond the undefined return type.

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 mixes a signature line, Chinese explanatory text, and redundant deprecation markers ('deprecated: ...' and '[已弃用]'), and the 'returns' line repeats the return type already shown in the signature. It is brief but cluttered and not cleanly structured.

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 and only a generic args array in the schema, the description omits the shape of ILIB_ClassificationIndex and fails to point the agent to an alternative tool. The deprecation status is clear, but invocation details and replacement guidance are missing, making it incomplete for reliable use.

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 the baseline is 3. The signature line adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' schema description by indicating that args should contain a classificationIndex of type ILIB_ClassificationIndex. However, the structure of ILIB_ClassificationIndex is not explained, and the schema's args array remains 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 clearly identifies the operation: obtaining classification name(s) by index, with the exact method signature and Chinese description '获取指定索引的分类的名称'. The 'byIndex' focus in both name and description distinguishes it from siblings like eda_lib_classification_get_name_by_uuid, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_name_by_uuid or get_index_by_name. The deprecation note implies it should not be used, but no replacement or alternative is suggested, and no conditions or prerequisites are given.

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