eda_dmt_board_get_all_boards_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (Promise<Array<IDMT_BoardItem>>) and that it returns an array of detailed properties, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active project, what happens if no boards exist, or any side effects. For a getter with no annotations, this is a notable 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 compact: a code signature line, a one-line Chinese summary, and a return-type note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler. The bilingual mix is slightly redundant (the Chinese repeats the English signature), but it's still efficient and scannable.

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?

For a simple getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and return type. However, it lacks details about the structure of IDMT_BoardItem, whether the operation requires an open project, and how it differs from the sibling get_board_info/get_current_board_info. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (args and windowId). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers the parameters fully. The description's mention of '工程内' (in the project) provides some context for the windowId parameter's scope, but not explicitly.

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 and resource: '获取工程内所有板子的详细属性' (get detailed properties of all boards in the project), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like eda_dmt_board_get_board_info and eda_dmt_board_get_current_board_info by the 'all boards' scope, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage context: it retrieves all boards' detailed properties in the project, which is distinct from single-board or current-board getters. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly guide selection among siblings.

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