sch_get_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only operation through '读取', but it does not disclose what the returned state actually contains, whether an open schematic is required, or any error behaviors.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but the brevity borders on under-specification because '状态' is ambiguous. For a zero-parameter tool, this level of concision is acceptable, though not exemplary.

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?

Even with no parameters, the lack of an output schema and the vague term 'state' leave the agent without a clear expectation of the return value or how this tool fits into a broader workflow. A brief sentence naming the state fields or return type would make it complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add.

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 clear verb ('读取' / read) and identifies the resource as '原理图状态' (schematic state), which distinguishes it from PCB-state and netlist tools. However, 'state' remains somewhat broad and the description largely restates the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pcb_get_state or sch_get_netlist. There are no conditions, exclusions, or workflow hints.

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