pcb_list_eda_windows

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only in intent by listing windows and their active status, which covers the core behavioral context. However, it does not clarify what values 'activity status' may take or whether the list may be empty.

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 short Chinese sentence conveys the action, resource, and output scope with no filler. This is highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter listing tool, so the description is close to sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not state the exact return format or explain how the returned data would be consumed by related tools like pcb_select_eda_window.

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 there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly communicates the only meaningful thing needed: the tool's scope is all connected EDA windows, not any specific one.

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 ('列出' / list) and a specific resource ('所有已连接嘉立创EDA窗口') with a clear scope ('活动状态' / active status). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like pcb_select_eda_window, which selects a window.

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 that this tool is used for inspecting connected EDA windows before interacting with them, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it or when not to use it. Given the sibling pcb_select_eda_window, a brief 'use this before selecting a window' would improve guidance.

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