search_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the returned entry categories (type: invention/part/detachable/readme) and the fields returned (note, anchor, path, description), plus the empty-query fallback behavior. It omits result-size limits, ordering, and pagination behavior, which matters for a search tool.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the searched corpus and immediately followed by the empty-query rule and examples. Every clause carries information, though the run-on corpus enumeration is slightly heavy for scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned type values and fields, plus the empty-query behavior. For a single-parameter search tool this is close to complete; only pagination/result-cap behavior is unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: five domain-specific example queries (镜头, 工具栏, tooltip, 批量选择, 手风琴) and the tip that Chinese keywords work best, which tells the agent how to phrase input rather than just its type.

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?

States a specific verb (检索/search) and a specific resource (设计零件库), then enumerates exactly what corpus is covered: invention table, parts table, per-note 「可拆」 anchors, and READMEs. That enumeration implicitly separates it from get_part/get_source, but it never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule for the one parameter: empty query returns the full invention table, non-empty returns matching entries, backed by five concrete example queries. It does not state when to prefer this over get_part or get_source, so the alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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