Retrieves detailed properties for every schematic page in the active EasyEDA Pro project, returning an array of page items for inspection or further processing.
dmt_Schematic.getAllSchematicPagesInfo() -> Promise<Array> 获取工程内所有原理图图页的详细属性 returns: 所有原理图图页的详细属性的数组
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return type (Array<IDMT_SchematicPageItem>) and that it returns detailed attributes, which is helpful. However, it does not describe how the windowId parameter affects the call, whether it requires an open project, what happens when no pages exist, or any error cases.
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 front-loaded with the API signature. It includes a concise Chinese purpose statement and a return-type line. The returns line partially repeats the description, but overall the text is efficient for a simple retrieval tool.
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 retrieval tool, the description covers the core purpose and return type, and the schema covers both parameters. However, it is incomplete on scope semantics (whether '工程内' means current project or any project), the role of windowId, and expected behavior in edge cases. With no annotations or output schema, the description could have provided more context without being verbose.
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%, with both args and windowId documented in the schema. The description itself adds no extra meaning about the parameters, such as how windowId selects the target window or what the args array should contain. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 identifies the action ('获取工程内所有原理图图页的详细属性') and the resource ('all schematic pages in a project'), and gives the return type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the closely related sibling eda_dmt_schematic_get_current_schematic_all_schematic_pages_info, which differs only by the current-schematic scope.
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 it is used to retrieve all schematic page details in a project, but it does not explain when to choose this over siblings like eda_dmt_schematic_get_current_schematic_all_schematic_pages_info or eda_dmt_schematic_get_schematic_page_info. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.