szlcsc_altium_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions calling a local tool and converting data, but omits critical details: whether it downloads data from EasyEDA, overwrites files, requires network, has destructive potential, or how timeouts affect behavior. With 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, important behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permission needs) is missing.

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 single Chinese sentence, which is concise but not structured. It is not front-loaded with a summary; a single imperative statement without breaks or emphasis on key aspects. While short, it sacrifices clarity and scannability. It is functional but could be more effective with separation of purpose, usage, and behavior.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema (not shown), the tool has high complexity (13 parameters, lengthy timeouts, local dependency) and a broad context of 25 sibling tools. The description only covers basic conversion purpose. It does not explain return values, error conditions, caching behavior, or differentiate from closely related tools (e.g., batch import, status check). The agent is left without enough information to safely and effectively invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0% - none of the 13 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself provides zero additional meaning about parameters like 'identifier', 'preview', 'timeout', 'output_root', etc. The description fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions, leaving the agent with only parameter names and types (e.g., 'identifier' as a string, 'symbol_only' as a boolean) which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 it converts EasyEDA data (for a specified C number/MPN) into Altium SchLib/PcbLib/3D files. It uses a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('EasyEDA data to Altium libraries'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like szlcsc_altium_import_batch (batch import) or szlcsc_altium_smoke_test (testing). The Chinese wording is unambiguous for users familiar with the tool.

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 has no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., szlcsc_altium_import_batch for multiple components, szlcsc_download_part for raw data). It implies a local dependency ('altium-cruncher') but does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent receives no direct help in choosing this tool over siblings.

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