szlcsc_parse_barcode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It describes the main action and the optional lookup side effect, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens on invalid text), return format beyond schema, or any side effects like network calls during lookup. Adequate but not thorough given zero annotation support.

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 with key information front-loaded: the verb '解析' (parse), the resource type, and extracted fields. It efficiently adds the lookup behavior. Slightly more could be added for error cases, but it avoids verbosity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no enums, has output schema) and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the core purpose and the main optional behavior. With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed in text. It is sufficient for selecting the tool, though error handling or invalid input guidance is missing.

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 carries full burden for clarifying parameters. It explains 'raw' implicitly as the barcode text, and 'lookup' as an optional flag to fetch part details. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, meeting the compensation requirement well.

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 parses barcode text from LCSC packaging and identifies the fields extracted (pc, pm, qty). It is specific about the resource (barcode text) and the action (parse). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though its purpose is unique enough among them.

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 this tool is for decoding barcode text, which is its primary use. It mentions optional lookup behavior, but provides no guidance on when to use lookup=true versus false, nor contrasts with any sibling tool for fetching part details (e.g., szlcsc_get_part). Usage context is clear only for the core parsing function.

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