eda_lib_footprint_search

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 discloses the return type (Array<ILIB_FootprintSearchItem>) and that it is a search operation, but it does not describe pagination behavior, whether the search is fuzzy/exact, case sensitivity, or side effects. The Chinese '搜索封装' adds no behavioral detail beyond 'search'.

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 front-loaded with the signature, but it includes a redundant Chinese phrase '搜索封装' that merely restates 'search'. The return line is useful but minimal. No wasted sentences, but the content is thin.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque args array, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the search key semantics, the classification parameter, pagination defaults, or what the returned footprint properties contain. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without external documentation.

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% for the two top-level parameters (args and windowId), but the args array items are untyped and undocumented. The description's signature lists parameter names (key, libraryUuid, classification, itemsOfPage, page) but does not explain their meaning or format. The signature adds some value beyond the schema, but the semantics of each parameter remain unclear.

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 specific verb ('search') and resource ('footprint'), and the signature shows it returns footprint search items. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like eda_lib_footprint_search_by_properties and eda_lib_footprint_get, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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 like eda_lib_footprint_search_by_properties or eda_lib_footprint_get. The signature implies search by key string, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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