eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_interactive_bom_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return type and that the result may be undefined, but it does not state whether this is a safe read-only operation, what fileName refers to, or any side effects or failure conditions. For a file-fetching tool this is a notable gap.

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 method signature and core action. The 'returns' line largely repeats the signature's Promise<File | undefined> and adds little, but there is no fluff or excessive length.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain what an 'interactive BOM file' is, how fileName is used, or how this differs from the related get_bom_file. An agent would likely struggle to know what arguments to pass and what to expect beyond a generic File/undefined.

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 includes 'fileName?: string' in the signature but does not explain what the file name represents, its expected format, or how it relates to the current board or project. The schema's args array is generic JSON with no per-parameter semantics, and windowId is the only parameter with a useful description, so the main parameter remains underspecified.

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 clear verb ('获取' / get) and a specific resource ('交互式 BOM 文件' / interactive BOM file), and the signature shows it returns a Promise of File or undefined. The 'interactive' qualifier helps distinguish it from the sibling eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_bom_file, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling file-retrieval tools, such as get_bom_file or get_gerber_file. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing hints, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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