eda_sch_manufacture_data_get_assembly_variants_configs

Does 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 does reveal the return shape (Promise<Array<{text, value}>>) and implies read-only ('get'), but it doesn't explicitly state side effect absence, permissions needed, or any constraints. The return type is useful, but the lack of explicit safety or side-effect disclosure leaves a moderate 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 compact and front-loaded with the function signature, followed by a Chinese summary and return type. It's efficient with no unnecessary fluff, though the signature and Chinese text are somewhat redundant. Still, it's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits critical context: what arguments should be passed in the 'args' array, any prerequisites (e.g., needing an open schematic document), and error behavior. The return type is given, but without knowing the expected args content or required context, an agent might not call it correctly. The lack of detail on the args array is a significant gap.

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 already describes both 'args' (JSON parameter array in official signature order) and 'windowId' (target EDA window ID; omit for current active window) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a list of assembly variant configurations (获取装配体变量配置列表) and provides the return type as an array of {text, value} objects. It's a specific verb+resource pair and not a tautology, though it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings. Given there is no closely similar sibling, a 4 is appropriate.

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 alternatives, no context about when it's appropriate, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what it does, not when to use it.

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