eda_dmt_schematic_get_schematic_page_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<IDMT_SchematicPageItem | undefined>) and the failure condition (undefined indicates failure). The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or that it requires a valid UUID and possibly an open document. It adds moderate behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, including the method signature and a brief Chinese explanation of what it returns and the failure case. It is succinct with no filler, though the signature and prose slightly overlap. The most important info (what it does and return behavior) is present without excess.

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 read operation, the description conveys the basic purpose and return semantics. However, it omits practical usage context such as how to obtain the schematicPageUuid, whether the page must be open in the current window, or any prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned item's structure would be helpful, but the failure condition is clearly stated. The description is minimally adequate but not 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?

The schema already describes both parameters (args as a JSON array in official signature order, windowId as an optional target window). The description repeats the parameter name in the signature (schematicPageUuid) but doesn't explain how to format it within the args array or that it is required (though the signature implies it). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little semantic value beyond confirming the parameter exists.

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 retrieves detailed properties of a schematic page via 'getSchematicPageInfo(schematicPageUuid)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_all_schematic_pages_info and get_current_schematic_page_info by the explicit UUID parameter, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. Overall the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention that the UUID can be obtained from get_all_schematic_pages_info or that get_current_schematic_page_info is an alternative when targeting the active page. The only hint is the signature, which implies the need for a specific page UUID, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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