easyeda_select_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool selects a window for subsequent API calls, which implies a stateful side effect (changing the active window context). However, it doesn't disclose whether this is persistent, whether it affects other windows, whether it can be undone, or what happens if the windowId is invalid. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the condition ('当连接了多个嘉立创EDA窗口时') and states the action. It's efficient with no wasted words. It could arguably add a bit more behavioral detail, but for its length it's well-structured.

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 stateful selection tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't explain the return value, error behavior, or whether the selection persists across calls. Given the tool's role in routing subsequent API calls, an agent would benefit from knowing what happens after selection and how to verify it. The description is minimal and leaves these gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the windowId parameter. The description adds the context that the windowId comes from easyeda_bridge_status, which is useful but not essential since the schema already says this. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('选择' = select) and resource ('窗口' = window), and clarifies the context (when multiple EasyEDA windows are connected). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling easyeda_bridge_status, which presumably reports status, while this tool selects the active window for subsequent API calls. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when to use this tool: when multiple windows are connected and you need to choose which one subsequent API calls target. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like easyeda_bridge_status. The context is implied rather than explicit, so it's adequate but has gaps.

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