eda_dmt_pcb_get_current_pcb_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the function returns undefined if retrieval fails, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely but not stated), any prerequisites like requiring an open PCB, or error-throwing behavior beyond the undefined return. This is partial transparency but misses key details for a getter.

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 short and includes a code signature line, a remarks section, and a returns section, which is reasonably structured. It conveys the essential behavior in a compact form without excessive verbosity. However, the structure could be improved by separating the return behavior more clearly, but it is not padded with unnecessary information.

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, the description is fairly complete: it states what it fetches, the scope (current PCB with last focus), and the failure return value (undefined). It does not describe the IDMT_PcbItem structure, but there is no output schema, and for a getter the agent may not need full detail. The main missing piece is an explicit note that a PCB must be open, but this is implied by 'current open PCB.' Overall, it covers the essential context.

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%: both parameters (args and windowId) have descriptions in the schema. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and since the description provides no additional parameter context, this score 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 it fetches detailed properties of the current PCB, using the verb '获取' (get) and a specific resource. The name 'current_pcb_info' already suggests the scope, and the description confirms it targets the currently open PCB with last input focus. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like eda_dmt_pcb_get_pcb_info, which retrieves a specific PCB by ID, though the word 'current' provides implicit 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it is the go-to for getting info about the currently active PCB, nor does it mention when to use eda_dmt_pcb_get_pcb_info for a specific PCB. The only hint is the word 'current' in the name and description, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context.

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