eda_lib_symbol_get_render_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it only reports the signature and a Blob/undefined return. It implies a read-only getter but does not state that explicitly, nor does it explain what undefined means, error conditions, or any side effects. The return type is useful but minimal.

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 short and front-loads the signature, which is the most useful part. The final 'returns: 符号渲染图' line is redundant with the signature's Promise<Blob | undefined> but does not add meaningful clutter.

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 image-fetching tool, the explicit source fields make the call possible, but the description lacks expected behavior (when undefined is returned, image format/scale, window selection semantics) and use context. No annotations or output schema exist to fill in these gaps.

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 generic schema only defines args and windowId, so the source object with symbolUuid, libraryUuid, and optional subPartName is the sole meaningful parameter documentation; this is a substantial addition. It omits prose about subPartName semantics and the positional relationship to args, but the signature is enough to construct a valid call.

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 names a concrete operation, 'lib_Symbol.getRenderImage', and the Chinese '获取符号渲染图' makes clear it retrieves a symbol's rendered image. The source object fields (symbolUuid, libraryUuid, subPartName) distinguish it from sibling symbol data operations like eda_lib_symbol_get, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 given about when to use this tool rather than eda_lib_symbol_get, eda_lib_footprint_get_render_image, or others. The intended context is only implied by the name, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., library must exist) are stated.

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