eda_dmt_board_get_current_board_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<IDMT_BoardItem | undefined>), the failure condition (undefined means retrieval failed), and the precise selection semantics ('last input focus'). This is strong for a read-only getter, though it does not enumerate the fields of IDMT_BoardItem or explicitly state that no modifications occur.

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 and well-structured with a signature line, a one-sentence summary, and dedicated remarks/returns fields. The API signature line is slightly redundant with the tool name and return info, but it is informative rather than wasteful. Every line earns its place.

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 adequately covers the operation, the meaning of 'current', and the failure return. However, the structure of IDMT_BoardItem is left undocumented, and the generic 'args' parameter remains a black box, which limits how confidently an agent can interpret the result or specify parameters.

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 args and windowId. The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states; if anything, the args content remains an opaque array with empty item schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: '获取当前板子的详细属性' (get detailed properties of the current board). The remarks further clarify the scope by specifying that it targets the board associated with the currently open and last-input-focused schematic/PCB, which distinguishes it from related tools like get_board_info. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 remarks provide clear context for when this tool applies: when there is a currently open schematic/PCB with last input focus. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives (e.g., get_board_info for a specific board UUID, or get_all_boards_info for listing), nor does it give exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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