eda_dmt_select_control_get_current_document_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contract (object with document type, UUID, project/library UUID), the focus-based selection behavior, and the failure signal (`undefined`). It does not explicitly state side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the getter wording and return semantics.

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: a signature, a one-line purpose, a remarks sentence, and a returns sentence. There is minimal redundancy and no filler. The key behavior (focus-based selection) and failure condition are both included without bloating the text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return shape and the `undefined` failure case. It also clarifies which document qualifies as 'current' (last input focus). It could go deeper on multi-window behavior, but for a simple read operation with no required parameters, it is sufficiently 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%, so the base expectation is met. The description adds the method signature `getCurrentDocumentInfo()` implying no positional args, which is useful, but it does not clarify the `windowId` parameter beyond the schema's generic description. Overall the schema already does most of the parameter work.

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 action and resource: '获取当前文档的属性' (get current document's attributes) and enumerates the returned fields (document type, UUID, parent project/library UUID). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters like get_current_project_info or get_current_schematic_info, but the focus on the currently focused document is specific enough.

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 remarks define the exact usage context: it retrieves the currently open document that has the last input focus. This tells the agent when to use this rather than other 'current' info getters. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and unambiguous.

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