eda_dmt_board_get_board_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. It does state the return type (Promise<IDMT_BoardItem | undefined>) and that undefined means failure, which is some transparency. However, it does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether the board must already exist, or what properties are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 – essentially a signature, a Chinese phrase, and a return note. It avoids fluff and conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it omits potentially useful context, but conciseness itself is not penalized for being short; it earns a 4 for being to the point without wasted words.

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, the description covers the return type and the undefined failure case. It does not explain the role of windowId (though the schema covers it), whether the board must be open in the current window, or what specific properties are included. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity about prerequisites and result content.

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 100% description coverage, providing generic explanations for args and windowId. The tool description adds specific meaning by including the function signature 'dmt_Board.getBoardInfo(boardName: string)', which clarifies that the args array should contain a boardName string. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'JSON参数数组' and is valuable for constructing correct calls.

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 action (获取板子的详细属性 – get board detailed properties) and the resource (板子/board). It includes the full function signature with parameter name, so an agent knows it retrieves info for a named board. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like eda_dmt_board_get_current_board_info or eda_dmt_board_get_all_boards_info, so it's not clear when to pick this over them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for a specific board by name, nor does it exclude cases where get_current_board_info or get_all_boards_info would be more appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and signature.

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