eda_dmt_panel_get_current_panel_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It identifies the operation as a read-only getter, explains exactly what 'current' means (open and last input focus), and documents that undefined indicates retrieval failure. For a simple getter, the key behavioral semantics are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the API signature, followed by a one-line Chinese summary, a clarifying remark, and return semantics. There is slight redundancy between the main summary and the remarks line, but the structure is clear and not bloated.

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 definition is largely complete: it provides the return type, the failure sentinel, and the exact panel selection rule. A note about sibling tools or the shape of IDMT_PanelItem would improve completeness, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters (args and windowId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the input schema already states, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 action ('获取当前面板的详细属性') on a distinct resource, and adds the API signature with return type. The 'current' scope is further refined as the open panel with last input focus, which separates it from get_all_panels_info and get_panel_info, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 it: when you need the attributes of the currently active/focused panel, and it clarifies the selection criterion. However, it gives no explicit comparison to sibling tools like eda_dmt_panel_get_panel_info or eda_dmt_panel_get_all_panels_info, and no exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is mostly inferred.

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