eda_lib_device_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the call is a read/get operation and that it may return undefined via the signature '-> Promise<ILIB_DeviceItem | undefined>'. However, it does not explain side effects, permission needs, failure behavior, or what happens when the UUID does not exist.

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 front-loaded with the signature and purpose. The phrase 'returns: 器件属性' is somewhat redundant with '获取器件的所有属性', but the overall length is appropriate and there is no irrelevant filler.

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 agent still lacks information about the structure of ILIB_DeviceItem, when libraryUuid is required, and how this tool differs from eda_lib_device_get_by_lcsc_ids. The description is adequate for identifying the tool but not for confidently invoking it in all relevant situations.

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 only exposes a generic args array with empty items, so the description's signature adds real meaning: parameter names (deviceUuid, libraryUuid), types (string), and optionality. It does not elaborate on the meaning of libraryUuid beyond its name, but the signature is a significant addition over the 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 a clear verb and resource: '获取器件的所有属性' (get all properties of a device) and shows the exact function signature lib_Device.get(deviceUuid, libraryUuid). It is clear enough to differentiate from operations like create/delete/modify, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with eda_lib_device_get_by_lcsc_ids or eda_lib_device_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus search, get_by_lcsc_ids, or other library getters. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are given, so the agent must infer usage from the name and signature alone.

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