eda_lib_symbol_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a search operation returning a list, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, permission requirements, or any limitations such as pagination behavior or result ordering. The return type is mentioned but not the structure of the items.

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 a raw TypeScript signature followed by a short Chinese phrase and a return note. It is not structured as a clear human-readable description; the key purpose is buried in the middle. While brief, the lack of organization and mixing of code with natural language reduces clarity and hurts front-loading of essential information.

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 description gives the function signature and states the return type, but details about the return item structure (ILIB_SymbolSearchItem), parameter semantics, search behavior, and error handling are missing. With no output schema, an agent cannot fully understand the result format or how to construct the args correctly beyond the bare signature.

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 provides only generic args and windowId, so the description adds value by listing parameter names and types (key, libraryUuid, classification, etc.). However, it does not explain the meaning or semantics of these parameters beyond their type names, leaving ambiguity about expected values and behavior.

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 clearly states '搜索符号' (search symbols) and provides a specific function signature for lib_Symbol.search. This conveys the verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from 'get' operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search functions like eda_lib_symbol_search_by_properties.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The presence of multiple search tools in the sibling list makes this gap significant.

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