eda_dmt_panel_get_all_panels_info

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it returns a Promise<Array<IDMT_PanelItem>>, which indicates it's a read operation, but it does not clarify whether it accesses the current project or requires a specific window, nor does it mention any side effects or limitations (e.g., performance with many panels).

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 and includes a code-like signature and Chinese text. It is concise but under-specified; the information provided is minimal and does not add much beyond the function signature. It could be more structured by explaining the return format or what 'detailed attributes' means.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to know what to expect. It does not describe the shape of the returned array items (IDMT_PanelItem), nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., active project). The tool is relatively simple but with no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 schema has 100% coverage, with the 'args' parameter described as a JSON array and 'windowId' described as the target window ID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already explains them, the baseline is 3; however, the description does imply the tool operates within a project context, which is somewhat helpful. Thus, a 4 is appropriate as the schema is sufficient.

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 'getAllPanelsInfo' and explains it retrieves detailed attributes of all panels in the project, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'eda_dmt_panel_get_all_panels_info' with other panel-related getters like 'eda_dmt_panel_get_panel_info' (single panel) or 'eda_dmt_panel_get_current_panel_info'. The purpose is understandable but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other panel-related tools, such as when to use 'eda_dmt_panel_get_panel_info' for a specific panel or 'eda_dmt_panel_get_current_panel_info' for the current panel. There is no mention of context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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