eda_sch_document_navigate_to_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explicitly stating that this interface does NOT zoom, that it generates indicator rectangles and a center marker, that the unit span is 0.01 inch, and that it returns a boolean success indicator. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives the agent useful expectations for side effects.

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 well structured with a signature line, a brief purpose, a concrete example, explicit behavioral caveats, version note, and return semantics. No redundant filler is present. It could be tightened by placing the English purpose line alongside the Chinese one, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 navigation helper with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, parameter interpretation via example, units, no-zoom behavior, visual rectangle generation, and return value. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining the coordinate reference system or how the generated rectangle markers can be removed, but it is still adequate for most agent calling scenarios.

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 input schema only exposes a generic args array and windowId, so the real parameters (left, right, top, bottom) are not documented there. The description compensates with the full signature and a concrete example showing that {left:0, right:60, top:100, bottom:-20} centers on [30,40] with x-length 60 and y-length 120. This makes the parameter meaning usable, though it does not explain each edge independently.

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 action: '定位到画布区域' (navigate to canvas region) and gives the full method signature navigateToRegion(left, right, top, bottom). It is specific about operating on a schematic document and targeting a rectangular region. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling eda_sch_document_navigate_to_coordinates, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as eda_sch_document_navigate_to_coordinates, eda_dmt_editor_control_zoom_to_region, or the PCB-domain navigate_to_region. No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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