Select a specific PCB layer in EasyEDA Pro to change the active editing layer. Returns success status, false if the layer does not exist.
pcb_Layer.selectLayer(layer: TPCB_LayersInTheSelectable) -> Promise
选中图层
returns: 操作是否成功，不存在指定层将返回 false
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one behavioral aspect: returns false if the specified layer does not exist. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., changing the current layer), permissions, error conditions beyond nonexistence, or any other observable behavior. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a signature line and a short Chinese phrase plus a return note. While brevity is good, the structure mixes code signature and prose without clear separation, and the content is too sparse to be effective. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent to parse meaning efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'select' means operationally, how to pass the layer parameter, what the return boolean signifies beyond success/failure, or how windowId affects behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent has insufficient information to call this tool correctly in varied contexts.
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 schema describes args as 'JSON parameter array in official signature order' and windowId as target window ID, but these are generic. The description does not clarify what TPCB_LayersInTheSelectable values are valid, how to specify the layer, or what the array should contain. The schema coverage is high (100% properties described), but the descriptions are not tool-specific, and the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters.
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 the verb 'select' and the resource 'layer' via the signature and the Chinese phrase '选中图层' (select layer). It is not a tautology, but it does not explain what selecting a layer actually does (e.g., makes it active) nor how it differs from sibling layer tools like lock_layer, set_layer_visible, etc. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts where selection is needed, or why one would choose selectLayer over other layer operations. The description offers no usage direction whatsoever.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.