szlcsc_library_repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals core behaviors: safe repair, dry-run by default, scope (flat + CAD consistency), and excluded actions. However, it omits the behavior when dry_run=false (actual repair could be destructive) and does not mention permissions or side effects.

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 single Chinese sentence is dense yet scannable, front-loading the purpose and key constraints. Every part adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the main purpose and defaults but lacks details on identifiers and library_root. An output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description. The agent would need to infer parameter interactions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for dry_run, repair_flat, and reconcile_cad by matching terms in the description, but does not explain identifiers or library_root. Thus it provides partial but incomplete parameter context.

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 the tool repairs the long-term component library, specifies exactly what it restores (flat image, CAD owner/index consistency) and excludes (download, CAD generation), and mentions default dry-run. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like szlcsc_library_add or szlcsc_library_sync.

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 implies the tool is for repair when library consistency issues exist, and notes the default safe dry-run behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like szlcsc_library_audit or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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