eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_altium_designer_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the return type `File | undefined` and gives no hints about side effects, permissions, required setup, or error behavior. It does not clarify whether the operation is read-only or what happens on failure, leaving an agent uninformed about operational expectations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the signature, making it easy to scan. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical usage and behavioral details, so it is efficient but not comprehensive.

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?

Given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, the description still falls short. It does not explain how to structure the `args` array, the relationship between `fileName` and the current board, or what the returned file represents. The lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance makes it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without prior knowledge of the API pattern.

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 a generic JSON parameter array and `windowId` with a generic description, but does not document individual parameters. The description adds a signature suggesting `fileName` is the first array element, yet it does not explain how to encode it in the array or that it is optional. It also omits any mention of `windowId`, so the agent must infer its role. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool retrieves an Altium Designer file via the `pcb_ManufactureData.getAltiumDesignerFile` method, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling getters by file type (though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative). The bilingual text is unambiguous about the purpose.

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 like `eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_gerber_file` or `eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_bom_file`. There are no stated prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The only implied usage is evident from the tool name, so the description adds no selection value.

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