Get EasyEDA Pro editor context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that it reads from 'the open EasyEDA Pro instance' (implying a live editor must be connected), but says nothing about what happens when no instance is open or how large/volatile the payload is.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or hedging. Every clause (project, document, selection, editor context) carries information about the return payload.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values; it names the four categories of context but not their structure, whether selection may be empty, or how they are nested. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about result shape and failure modes.

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?

The single parameter timeoutMs has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so its units, default behavior, and the 120000 ms ceiling are undocumented anywhere beyond the bare JSON Schema constraints. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarizes') and enumerates the concrete resources returned: active project, active document, selection, and editor context. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling easyeda_get_selection, which a naive agent might pick instead for the selection portion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites beyond 'the open EasyEDA Pro instance', and no routing to alternatives such as easyeda_live_status, easyeda_get_selection, or easyeda_list_documents. The agent must infer that this is an orientation/state-read tool called before other operations.

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