eda_lib_panel_library_get

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 states the return type (Promise<ILIB_PanelLibraryItem | undefined>) and that it returns panel library properties, but it doesn't disclose behavior like whether it throws on missing UUID, whether it requires an open library document, or what 'all properties' includes. The 'returns: 面板库属性' line is redundant with the signature.

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 contains redundancy: the Chinese '获取面板库的所有属性' and 'returns: 面板库属性' repeat the same information. The signature line is useful, but the rest could be tighter.

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 get-by-UUID tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the meaning of libraryUuid, the shape of ILIB_PanelLibraryItem, or error/undefined behavior. An agent would need to guess whether the second parameter is required for certain library types or how to obtain a valid panelLibraryUuid.

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%, but the schema only describes the args array generically as 'JSON参数数组按官方签名顺序排列' and windowId. The description's signature line adds the parameter names (panelLibraryUuid, libraryUuid) and their types, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what libraryUuid is for or when it's needed, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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 ('get') and resource ('面板库' / panel library), and the signature shows it retrieves a panel library item by UUID. It is distinguishable from siblings like eda_lib_panel_library_search (search) and eda_lib_panel_library_modify (modify), though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for fetching a single panel library's properties by UUID, nor does it contrast with search or list operations. The context of needing a panelLibraryUuid is implied but not stated as a prerequisite.

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