eda_pcb_select_control_get_current_mouse_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the async return type, the shape {x, y}, and the critical edge case where `undefined` means the mouse is not on the canvas. However, it omits other behavioral traits like coordinate units, reference frame, or whether a specific document type must be active, leaving the agent partially informed.

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, containing only the method signature, a one-line purpose, and a return-value explanation. Every piece earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the signature before the purpose. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple getter with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return semantics, including the undefined edge case. However, it lacks important context such as coordinate units (mm, mil, pixel) and whether the position is in canvas or data coordinates, which could lead to incorrect use. The schema covers parameters but not these domain-specific details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention `windowId` or `args`. The schema already documents both parameters adequately, so the description provides no additional value here.

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 action ('获取当前鼠标在画布上的位置' – get current mouse position on canvas) with a clear resource. The tool name itself carries the PCB domain, and the sibling eda_sch_select_control_get_current_mouse_position is differentiated by the 'pcb'/'sch' prefix, though the description text does not explicitly mention 'PCB' to exclude the schematic variant.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the schematic version or other coordinate-query tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., active PCB document) or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage solely from the purpose.

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