eda_sch_manufacture_data_get_pdf_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only says '获取 PDF 文件' and 'returns: PDF 文件数据（或压缩包）'. It doesn't disclose that this is a read/export operation, whether it requires an active schematic document, what happens if no fileName is provided, or that the return can be a zip archive. The signature shows optional parameters but no 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 compact but the function signature is dense and technical. The Chinese description is minimal ('获取 PDF 文件' and 'returns: PDF 文件数据（或压缩包）'). The signature is front-loaded but the prose is extremely terse. It's not bloated, but it's also not well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It only says 'PDF 文件数据（或压缩包）' which is vague. The tool has complex nested parameters (typeSpecificParams, objectSpecificParams) but no explanation of defaults, required vs optional behavior, or what happens with no arguments. The sibling list shows many similar manufacture_data_get_* tools, and this description doesn't help an agent understand the schematic-specific context.

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% but the schema only describes 'args' as a JSON array and 'windowId'. The description's function signature provides rich parameter details (fileName, typeSpecificParams with theme/lineWidth/displayAttributesAsMenu/size, object, objectSpecificParams with range/outputMethod). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the description doesn't explain the semantics of these parameters in prose. The signature is self-documenting to some degree.

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 '获取 PDF 文件' (get PDF file), which is a specific verb+resource. The function signature in the description provides detailed parameter information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eda_pcb_manufacture_data_get_pdf_file, though the 'sch' prefix in the name helps distinguish schematic vs PCB.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this is for schematic PDF generation, nor does it explain when to use eda_sch_manufacture_data_get_png_file or eda_sch_manufacture_data_get_svg_file instead. The context is implied by the name but not stated.

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