eda_lib_symbol_open_in_editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return type (Promise<string | undefined>) but does not explain what the resolved string represents or what side effects occur (e.g., opening a new tab, focusing the editor, errors if symbol not found). The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the function call.

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 brief, consisting of a single line with the signature and a short Chinese phrase. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information, and while concise, it omits essential details. The structure does not aid comprehension; it reads more like a code snippet than a tool description.

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 an operation that opens a symbol in an editor, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value's meaning, whether it requires the library to be loaded, what happens if the symbol does not exist, or any interaction with the splitScreenId parameter. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry this burden but does not.

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 function signature listing parameter names and types (symbolUuid, libraryUuid, splitScreenId), which adds some value over the generic args array in the schema. However, it does not explain what each parameter means, what values they expect, or how they relate to the operation. The schema's args array is opaque, so the description only partially compensates.

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 '在编辑器打开文档' (open document in editor) and provides the function signature, which indicates it opens a symbol document in the editor. However, it does not clarify what a 'symbol' is in this context or what 'open in editor' entails, leaving the purpose somewhat vague beyond the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling open_in_editor tools for other library types.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like eda_lib_footprint_open_in_editor or eda_lib_cbb_open_symbol_in_editor. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description simply states the function without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.

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