eda_lib_classification_get_name_by_uuid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deprecation status and the return type, but does not mention potential side effects, error behavior, or permissions. As a read-only getter, it is likely non-destructive, but that is not stated. The description is transparent about deprecation and return shape but omits other behavioral details.

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 concise and structured: it includes the signature, purpose, deprecation info, and return description. However, there is redundancy in mentioning deprecation both in text and via the '[已弃用]' tag, which slightly reduces conciseness. Overall, it is well-organized and not overly verbose.

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, the description provides the essential context of deprecation and the return type. However, it lacks detailed parameter semantics and does not mention alternative tools, which would be helpful for an agent deciding whether to use it. The minimal schema does not compensate for these gaps. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description provides the function signature with parameter names and types (libraryUuid, libraryType, primaryClassificationUuid, secondaryClassificationUuid). However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter beyond the names, nor does it clarify how the primary and secondary UUIDs relate to the two-level classification. The input schema only has an args array, so the description's signature adds value but lacks detailed semantics.

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 states the tool's purpose: '获取指定 UUID 的分类的名称' (get the name of the classification for the specified UUID). It specifies the verb (get), resource (classification), and scope (by UUID). It also mentions '两级分类' (two-level classification) and explicitly notes the deprecation, distinguishing it from siblings like get_name_by_index which operate by index.

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 a deprecation notice ('deprecated: since EDA v3.2; dropped EDA v3.3'), which implicitly warns against using the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it suggest replacement tools. The deprecation status is a form of guidance but lacks explicit alternatives.

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