eda_pcb_document_get_calculating_ratline_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the Promise return type, the possibility of undefined, and deprecation status. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only/side-effect-free query or describe any behavioral caveats or permissions, leaving some important context unstated.

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-loaded with the signature, but it duplicates the deprecation information ('deprecated: since EDA v4.2' and '[已弃用]') and repeats the return type in the 'returns' line. It is compact but not every sentence 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 deprecated getter with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the signature, deprecation warning, and a minimal return type. It does not explain the possible values of EPCB_DocumentRatlineCalculatingActiveStatus or when undefined is returned, leaving the return semantics somewhat underspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema already documents args as an ordered JSON array and windowId as the target EDA window, so the agent can determine how to populate them.

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 states the method signature and a Chinese description '获取当前飞线计算功能状态' (get the current ratline calculation status), making the verb and resource explicit. It is readily distinguishable from sibling start/stop_calculating_ratline tools because it is the status getter.

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 deprecation note 'deprecated: since EDA v4.2' gives an explicit exclusion for newer versions, which is useful guidance. However, it does not name an alternative tool or explain when the tool might still be appropriate, so the when-to-use guidance is only partially complete.

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