eda_sch_manufacture_data_get_bom_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a Promise of an array of strings and returns a BOM template list, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether an active schematic document is required, what happens when no templates exist, or whether the returned strings are template names, IDs, or something else.

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 API signature, which is useful for an agent. The Chinese phrase '获取 BOM 模板列表' and 'returns: BOM 模板列表' are slightly redundant, but the overall structure is compact and no extra filler is present.

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 list-getter with no required parameters, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the operation, the return type, and the resource. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around whether the operation depends on the active document/window, whether it is safe/read-only, and what the string elements actually represent.

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 parameters: args as a JSON array in official signature order and windowId as an optional target EDA window. Since schema coverage is effectively complete, the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It also correctly implies that this function takes no meaningful named arguments beyond the generic args array.

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 verb ('获取' / 'get') and the resource ('BOM 模板列表'), so an agent can tell this is a listing operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like eda_sch_manufacture_data_get_bom_template_file or eda_sch_manufacture_data_delete_bom_template, though the 'list' phrasing and return type make the intent reasonably distinct.

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 such as get_bom_template_file, upload_bom_template_file, or delete_bom_template. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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