eda_sch_select_control_get_current_mouse_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the function returns a Promise resolving to an object with x and y coordinates, or undefined if the mouse is not on the canvas. This is important behavioral information about the return value. However, it does not mention whether the operation has side effects, requires a specific active document, or could throw errors. Given that this is a simple getter, the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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: a single line with the API signature, a one-sentence Chinese description of the operation, and a brief note on the return value semantics. Every element is necessary and front-loaded. No redundant or off-topic content.

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 read-only getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the undefined case. It omits any explicit statement that this applies to the schematic editor, but the 'sch' in the name and the sibling context make that clear. Minor gaps like error behavior or document requirements are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers both parameters with generic descriptions (args array and windowId), giving 100% coverage. The tool's actual signature 'getCurrentMousePosition()' indicates it takes no arguments, so the args array is empty and windowId is optional. The description does not add tool-specific parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable per the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'getCurrentMousePosition()' and in Chinese '获取当前鼠标在画布上的位置' (get the current mouse position on the canvas). It names the specific API and resource, and the 'sch' prefix differentiates it from PCB equivalents. The return type and undefined case are also provided, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the PCB counterpart 'eda_pcb_select_control_get_current_mouse_position'). It does not mention prerequisites, such as an active schematic editor or that the mouse must be over the canvas. The only contextual clue is the tool name itself, which is insufficient for explicit usage routing.

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