import_plugin

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, and it does so well. It discloses that the tool auto-opens a browser, that it will block/wait for a user to scan a QR code if not logged in, that login state is cached for subsequent calls, and that it performs a specific GUI-driven import sequence. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to anticipate. The only slight gap is that it doesn't state what the return/response looks like on success or failure.

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 longer than typical but appropriately so for a multi-step tool that opens a browser and requires login handling. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by file-path guidance, then the automation sequence, login caching, and follow-up. Each sentence earns its place by adding operational detail an agent needs. Slightly verbose but efficient for the complexity involved.

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 complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers the target, file location conventions, browser auto-launch, QR login flow with caching, the exact UI automation steps, and a pointer to the companion log tool. The main omission is the absence of any statement about the return value or failure/success signaling, which would round out the picture for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (absolute path for pluginPath, optional browserPath with auto-detect). The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by specifying the expected file conventions (.eext suffix, build/dist location) and explicitly instructing the agent to verify pluginPath targets a .eext file before invoking. This is useful, actionable context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement (导入插件到嘉立创EDA并开启浏览器控制台监听 – import plugin to JLC EDA and enable console listening) that states the action precisely. It goes further to describe the exact automated click path (高级→扩展管理器→上传插件文件→导入), so an agent understands exactly what will happen. It also references get_console_logs as the follow-up sibling, giving context that distinguishes this import action from log retrieval.

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 gives clear operational context: before calling, confirm pluginPath points to the .eext file in the build/dist directory, and notes the workflow (auto-open browser, QR login if needed, cached login state). It points to get_console_logs for retrieving output after import, which is a meaningful usage hint. However, it never states explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions or excludes alternatives; the guidance is implied by the workflow rather than stated as routing logic.

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