szlcsc_library_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. The word '查看' indicates a read-only operation, which is helpful, and the list of viewed aspects adds clarity. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, performance characteristics, or required setup (e.g., whether the library must be initialized first).

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without superfluous words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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?

Given that the tool has four parameters, no description coverage, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide parameter guidance or mention the return structure, leaving the agent with significant gaps for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, category, library_root, only_cad_owners). The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for a tool with this many siblings and optional filters.

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 is for viewing local SZLCSC/Altium device library status, including index, classification, duplicate MPN/CAD groups, and registered devices. The verb '查看' (view) and resource specification distinguish it from sibling tools like szlcsc_library_search (search) and szlcsc_library_sync (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 obtaining an overview of the library status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like szlcsc_library_audit or szlcsc_library_repair. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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