Opens a reusable module symbol in the editor by its component and library UUIDs, enabling direct inspection or modification of the symbol.
lib_Cbb.openSymbolInEditor(cbbUuid: string, libraryUuid: string, splitScreenId?: string) -> Promise<string | undefined> 在编辑器打开复用模块符号
| 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 full burden. It discloses only the action (open symbol) and the return type (Promise<string|undefined>), but not side effects, whether it opens a new tab or replaces the current view, permission requirements, or what the resolved string represents. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 very short and efficient, with the signature front-loaded and a single Chinese phrase summarizing the purpose. No unnecessary fluff. However, it might be slightly too terse, omitting important context, but that's a completeness issue rather than conciseness.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain what the returned string or undefined signifies, whether the operation is synchronous, any preconditions (like the library being open), or how splitScreenId is used. The signature gives types but not semantics. This is inadequate for a tool that affects the editor state.
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 description provides the parameter names and order (cbbUuid, libraryUuid, splitScreenId) via the signature, which the schema does not list individually (args is just an array). However, it does not explain the meaning or constraints of each parameter beyond their self-explanatory names. The schema's description of args as 'JSON array in official signature order' is supplemented by the signature, but depth is limited.
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 specific verb ('open') and resource ('reusable module symbol') with a clear target ('in editor'). The function signature gives the exact parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like eda_lib_symbol_open_in_editor by the 'cbb' prefix and the Chinese phrase, but it doesn't explicitly call out the 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_lib_cbb_open_project_in_editor or eda_lib_symbol_open_in_editor. No context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions under which this should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.