Open a specified footprint in the EDA editor using its footprint and library UUIDs. Optionally open in a split-screen view for side-by-side comparison.
lib_Footprint.openInEditor(footprintUuid: string, libraryUuid: string, splitScreenId?: string) -> Promise<string | undefined> 在编辑器打开文档
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it mostly restates the tool name without explaining consequences. It does not disclose whether a new tab opens, whether the active window changes, whether the library must already be loaded, or what the returned string/undefined signifies.
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 one-line signature is compact and front-loaded, but the Chinese sentence is largely redundant with the action already expressed by 'openInEditor'. It is not bloated, yet not every element earns its place.
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 open-in-editor action, the signature plus resource name provides the minimum needed to attempt a call. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves ambiguity about window targeting, return value meaning, and actual editor behavior.
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 signature adds meaningful parameter detail: footprintUuid, libraryUuid, and optional splitScreenId with types and ordering, which the generic 'args' schema description lacks. It stops short of explaining splitScreenId's semantic role, so it is not a perfect score.
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 identifies a specific action ('openInEditor') on a specific resource ('Footprint'), supplemented by the Chinese phrase '在编辑器打开文档' (open document in editor). It is distinguishable from footprint CRUD siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other *_open_in_editor tool variants.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_lib_symbol_open_in_editor or eda_lib_panel_library_open_in_editor. It does not mention prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.