eda_sys_environment_get_editor_complied_date

Does 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 merely states that the tool returns a string and translates the name, but does not mention that it is a safe read-only operation, whether it depends on any environment state, the return format (e.g., date pattern), or any potential side effects. The minimal information leaves an agent guessing about the exact behavior.

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 Chinese phrase '获取编辑器编译日期' and the 'returns' line essentially repeat the same information. The signature line 'sys_Environment.getEditorCompliedDate() -> string' is arguably unnecessary since the tool name already conveys the function call. The structure is not harmful but could be tightened, so it does not achieve a 4.

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?

This is a simple getter with no output schema, but the description is still too thin. It does not explain what the returned string represents (e.g., a formatted date, a timestamp, or a version string) nor the expected format. It also omits any mention of the optional parameters (args, windowId) and whether they are needed for this particular operation. An agent would have to make assumptions about the return value and parameter usage, making this incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage for its parameters (args and windowId), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters; it does not explain how they affect the call or what the args array should contain. Since the schema already documents the parameters clearly, the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'editor compiled date' clearly, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also provides a Chinese translation and return type, but does not differentiate it from other environment getter tools like get_editor_current_version. Since the name itself is self-explanatory)Skip, this earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or context in which the editor compiled date is needed. The only hint is the generic nature of a getter, but no explicit 'use when' or exclusions are given.

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