eda_pcb_document_get_canvas_update_calculation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return type (EPCB_DocumentCanvasUpdateCalculationActiveStatus | undefined) and notes that it is from a Promise. It also clarifies what the calculation includes. However, it doesn't describe what the status values mean, when undefined is returned, or whether this is a query-only operation (though 'get status' implies read-only). The behavioral disclosure is moderate.

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 compact: about four lines of useful content, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clarifying remark, version note, and return summary. It is not verbose, though the mixed-language layout is a bit fragmented and the remarks placement is somewhat arbitrary.

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?

This is a simple query tool with 2 parameters (one opaque args array), no output schema, and no annotations. To call it correctly, an agent would need to know what args to pass and what the output looks like. The description partially covers output (return type) and the operation scope, but the args array remains opaque, and the status values are not explained. For a query tool this is adequate but with clear 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 input schema has 2 parameters: args (a generic JSON array for official signature order) and windowId (target EDA window ID). Schema coverage is 100% according to context signals. The description mentions the method signature but does not explain what args should contain for this method. Since args are undocumented items (items: {}), the description adds no concrete parameter details, and the schema itself doesn't help. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description doesn't push above it.

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 a specific verb phrase: '查询当前画布更新计算状态' (query current canvas update calculation status), which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also provides a fallback English method signature and notes the return type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like eda_pcb_document_start_canvas_update_calculation or eda_pcb_document_stop_canvas_update_calculation — though the action is implied to be the read counterpart.

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 notes what canvas update calculation includes (canvas rendering updates, property panel updates) via remarks, giving some context on when this status is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when the returned status might be undefined. There is no exclusion guidance, but the semantics of 'get status' are understandable from the name.

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