Fetches detailed information for every net in the current project, enabling network analysis and design verification.
sch_Net.getCurrentProjectAllNets() -> Promise<Array> 获取当前工程下所有网络的详细信息 remarks: ADD since EDA v4.2 returns: 当前工程下所有网络的详细信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 discloses the return type and version (ADD since EDA v4.2), but does not state that it is a read-only operation, what happens if no project is open, whether it can fail, or any side effects. The minimal 'get' semantics imply read-only, but the description itself adds little behavioral context beyond the method signature.
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 but contains redundancy: the 'returns' line repeats the same information as the main Chinese sentence. The mix of English signature and Chinese explanation is functional but not tightly structured. It is not bloated, but not every line 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 simple getter, the description covers the basic purpose and return type, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it lacks context about when to select this tool over sibling net-query tools, and does not explain prerequisites such as requiring an active project or schematic. These gaps leave the agent to infer important usage 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%: both 'args' and 'windowId' have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately enough for an agent to know an args array and optional windowId are expected.
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 operation: '获取当前工程下所有网络的详细信息' (get detailed information of all nets in the current project), with a concrete verb and resource. It also gives the method signature and return type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as eda_sch_net_get_all_nets or eda_sch_net_get_all_nets_name, so it falls 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool is scope-limited to the current project while other net-related tools may operate on all nets or by name, nor does it describe any conditions such as requiring an open project or schematic document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.