Cross-select PCB elements by components, pins, or nets to sync highlight and selection across the design window, enabling efficient navigation and verification.
pcb_SelectControl.doCrossProbeSelect(components?: Array, pins?: Array, nets?: Array, highlight?: boolean, select?: boolean) -> Promise 进行交叉选择
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain side effects (e.g., whether highlight and select parameters cause visual changes), the meaning of the boolean return value, or any requirements (e.g., active window, valid object references). The description merely echoes the function signature without adding behavioral context.
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 brief (one line), which is appropriate for a simple tool but insufficient for a 5-parameter operation. It front-loads the signature but omits essential context. Conciseness without substance is under-specification, not effective conciseness.
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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter-level descriptions in the schema (only an opaque args array). The description adds almost nothing beyond the signature and a one-word Chinese phrase. An agent cannot determine how to construct the args array, what values are valid, or what the tool returns beyond a boolean. This is severely incomplete.
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 lists parameter names (components, pins, nets, highlight, select) but provides no additional meaning beyond their labels. The input schema only defines an args array and windowId, so the description is the only place parameter names appear. However, it does not explain types, constraints, or relationships between parameters, leaving the agent to guess the exact semantics of highlight and select flags.
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 tool performs cross-probe selection on a PCB, and the function signature lists relevant parameters (components, pins, nets). The purpose is somewhat clear, but it fails to differentiate from the sibling do_cross_probe_select_by_object, which likely performs a similar operation. The verb and resource are present, but the description is minimal and does not clarify what cross-probe selection entails in this context.
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 the alternative do_cross_probe_select_by_object or other selection tools like do_select_primitives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.