eda_sys_file_manager_extract_lib_info

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 the accepted input (File or Array<File>) and that it returns library config info, but says nothing about error behavior, whether the file must exist in the project, what happens with unsupported file types, or the structure of the returned config. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 very short and front-loads the signature and purpose. It is not wasteful, but it is so terse that it reads more like an under-specification than deliberate conciseness, lacking any context beyond the bare statement of intent.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry the full load, but it omits the return value structure, failure modes, and usage context. For a tool that accepts a file or list of files and returns extracted config data, an agent has enough to guess the intent but not enough to anticipate errors or interpret the result confidently.

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 schema's args parameter is a generic JSON array with empty item definitions, so the description's signature line 'data: File | Array<File>' adds real value by clarifying what the first positional argument is. However, it does not explain how the JSON array maps to the signature, nor the role of windowId beyond the schema's own note. The description partially compensates for the opaque args schema.

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 ('extract') and resource ('library configuration information from files'), and the signature makes the input type explicit. It is reasonably distinct from its sibling eda_sys_file_manager_extract_project_info by naming the resource (lib vs project), though it never explicitly differentiates itself.

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. The sibling eda_sys_file_manager_extract_project_info does something analogous but for projects, and there is no statement about when one applies over the other, nor any prerequisites about the file needing to be loaded or saved.

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