eda_lib_device_search_by_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only gives a signature and a brief purpose. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. The read-only nature is implied by 'search' but not stated explicitly, and pagination behavior is entirely absent.

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 short and ends with the purpose and return type, but it leads with a raw type signature that is not human-friendly. The Chinese purpose phrase is terse and the return description is minimal. While efficient, it does not structure information in a way that aids comprehension.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so a thorough description is essential. This one only provides a signature and a one-line purpose, omitting critical details like how to build the properties object, what classification and symbolType accept, and how pagination works. It is far from complete for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 signature exposes parameter names and types (e.g., 'properties: ILIB_DevicePropertiesForSearch'), but gives no explanation of what these mean or how to construct them. The input schema only has an opaque 'args' array, so the description partially compensates by listing the signature, yet it fails to clarify the semantics of key fields like libraryUuid, classification, or symbolType, leaving the agent unable to fill them 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 tool performs a specific action: searching devices precisely by properties. The verb 'search' and resource 'devices' are clear, and the 'by_properties' suffix distinguishes it from other device-related tools like eda_lib_device_get_by_lcsc_ids. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling eda_lib_device_search, so differentiation is implied but not spelled out.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_lib_device_search, eda_lib_footprint_search, or eda_lib_symbol_search. There is no mention of required context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which search tool fits the scenario.

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