Send simulation data to the schematic simulation kernel for dynamic or SPICE analysis. Pass event type and properties to drive simulation updates.
sch_SimulationEngine.pushData(eventType: ESCH_DynamicSimulationEnginePushEventType | ESCH_SpiceSimulationEnginePushEventType, props: Record<string, any>) -> void 向仿真内核发送数据
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'send data to simulation kernel' without revealing side effects, required event types, synchronization behavior, or any operational details. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating push operation.
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 very concise: a signature and a one-liner, with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the function signature. However, it could be improved by including more useful context without becoming verbose.
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?
The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It lacks details on acceptable event types, props structure, and any operational constraints. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge of the simulation engine's push interface.
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 provides descriptions for both parameters (args and windowId) with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the signature, so it does not enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 gives a specific function signature 'sch_SimulationEngine.pushData' and a one-liner '向仿真内核发送数据' (send data to simulation kernel). This clearly states the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool eda_sch_event_add_simulation_engine_pull_event_listener, which is about pulling data. The purpose is clear, though differentiation is implicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when a push operation is appropriate versus other simulation tools. It also doesn't reference the pull event listener sibling or any other related tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.