eda_sch_select_control_do_cross_probe_select

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

There are no annotations, and the description offers no behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects, what gets selected or highlighted, whether it clears previous selections, or any requirements like an active document. The signature mentions highlight and select booleans, but their effects are left entirely to inference.

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 extremely short, essentially a code signature plus a Chinese phrase and return note. While concise, it is unstructured and omits essential context. It reads as a raw API dump rather than a purpose-built description.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, this description is far from complete. It fails to explain the operation's purpose, parameter semantics, return value meaning, side effects, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based solely on the provided information.

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 description lists the parameter names and types (components, pins, nets as arrays of strings; highlight, select as booleans) via the method signature, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what these parameters represent (e.g., IDs, names, coordinate systems) or how they are used. The schema only documents the generic args array and windowId, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning, and it is insufficient.

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 the tool performs cross-probe selection (进行交叉选择), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what cross-probe selection entails or how it differs from similar selection tools like do_select_primitives. The phrase is too vague to fully convey the operation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, target document types, or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice among the many select_control tools.

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