eda_lib_panel_library_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool is a search returning a Promise of items; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what criteria are applied, whether pagination limits exist, or any side effects.

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 method signature. The Chinese one-liner and return note are somewhat redundant with the signature's declared return type, but the overall length is appropriate and free of 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?

For a search tool with five underlying parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides no parameter semantics, no filtering/pagination behavior, no return-shape details, and no examples, leaving an agent to guess how to construct the args array correctly.

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 input schema only describes generic wrapper fields (args array, windowId), so the description's method signature adds meaningful parameter names and types such as key, libraryUuid, classification, itemsOfPage, and page. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'key', the classification union type, or how pagination behaves.

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 action ('search') on a specific resource ('panel library'), and the method signature 'lib_PanelLibrary.search' aligns with the tool name. It is clear enough to distinguish this from panel library get/modify/create operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools.

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 alternatives such as eda_lib_panel_library_get, eda_lib_panel_library_open_in_editor, or other library search tools. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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