eda_dmt_schematic_get_current_schematic_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by explaining that 'current' means the schematic associated with the currently open page that has last input focus, and by stating that undefined means retrieval failed. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the 'get' verb and return semantics make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 clear main statement, a labeled remarks note, and a labeled returns note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or padded wording.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and failure signal, and the tool is simple with optional parameters. However, there is no output schema and the return value is only described as '详细属性' plus a type name, so an agent has limited information about the actual shape of IDMT_SchematicItem. Slightly more detail about what fields are returned would make it fully complete.

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% for the two parameters (args and windowId), so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-specific detail. The description does not explain how to populate args or when to set windowId, but the schema already provides those descriptions.

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: '获取当前原理图的详细属性' (get the current schematic's detailed attributes). The remarks further distinguish it from sibling page-level tools by clarifying that it returns the schematic associated with the currently open, last-input-focus schematic page, which separates it from get_current_schematic_page_info and similar tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs attributes of the current schematic. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like eda_dmt_schematic_get_schematic_info or eda_dmt_schematic_get_current_schematic_page_info, nor any exclusions.

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