pcb_execute_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that code runs in the extension environment and that 'eda' is the official API, but it omits crucial warnings about potential side effects, destructiveness, or permission requirements of executing arbitrary code. This is a significant gap for a code execution tool.

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 two sentences plus an illustrative example, front-loading the purpose and providing necessary context. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler, and the example is compact yet informative.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, execution environment, and provides an example, but it does not explain the output/return value format or warn about risks. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent receives after execution, and it does not specify error behavior or that code may mutate state.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'code' and 'windowId'. The description adds an example showing how to write a return statement, which provides practical semantic context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. This extra example meaningfully helps the agent understand how to construct valid input.

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 executes JavaScript code directly in the JLC EDA Pro environment, with a specific verb ('执行') and resource ('JavaScript 代码'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by being a generic code executor rather than a specific operation, and it explicitly labels itself as advanced/debug.

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 mentions '高级/调试用' (advanced/debug use), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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