eda_dmt_schematic_get_current_schematic_page_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 usefully states that the tool returns undefined on failure and specifies that it targets the page with the last input focus, not just any open page. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or any window targeting nuance beyond the optional windowId parameter.

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 a technical signature followed by a one-line purpose, remarks, and return behavior. Each part serves a function without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured with clear sections, but it is efficient and readable.

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 required parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns, the failure case (undefined), and the focus condition. It does not describe the structure of IDMT_SchematicPageItem, but given no output schema, this could be a gap; however, the purpose is adequately clear for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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' described generically. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is already adequate for a zero-required-parameter getter. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the documentation load.

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 a clear verb and resource: get detailed properties of the current schematic page. The 'remarks' adds specificity about 'currently open and having last input focus', which clarifies the exact target. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like eda_dmt_schematic_get_schematic_page_info, which also fetch page info, relying on the name for distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring a schematic page is open and focused, nor does it reference sibling getters (e.g., eda_dmt_schematic_get_all_schematic_pages_info). The context of 'last input focus' is implicit but not framed as a usage condition.

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