eda_lib_simulation_model_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the throw behavior in non-private deployments and the return type (Promise<...|undefined>) via the signature. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as potential error conditions, side effects, or the exact structure of returned properties. It's partially transparent.

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 moderately concise but not well-structured. It mixes technical signature, Chinese purpose, a remark, version info, and returns section without clear separation. The version info 'ADD since EDA v3.2.167' is extraneous. It's not front-loaded with the core purpose; the purpose appears after the signature.

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, the description is adequate but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid UUID) and the exact properties returned. It does mention the deployment constraint and returns type. Given no output schema, more detail on the return structure would be beneficial, but the signature partially covers it. It's sufficient for basic usage but not comprehensive.

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 includes the official signature with parameter names and types (simulationModelUuid: string, libraryUuid?: string), which adds meaning beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. The schema descriptions for args and windowId are clear, but the description enriches understanding by showing the parameter order and types, which is valuable for constructing the args array.

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 explicitly states '获取仿真模型的所有属性' (get all properties of the simulation model), naming the verb (get), resource (simulation model), and scope (all properties). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling CRUD operations like create, delete, modify, and search.

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 a deployment constraint (only valid in private deployment) but does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_lib_simulation_model_search. It doesn't state when not to use this tool or which scenarios favor it.

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