Retrieve the current user's account details, including username, nickname, avatar, UUID, and customer code, from the EDA environment to identify the active user.
sys_Environment.getUserInfo() -> { username?: string; nickname?: string; avatar?: string; uuid?: string; customerCode?: string } 获取用户信息 returns: 用户信息
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape but does not state whether the tool can fail (e.g., when not logged in), whether fields are optional or may be absent, whether it requires a specific window/context, or whether it has side effects. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral context unstated.
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 short and front-loads the API signature and return type. The Chinese '获取用户信息' and 'returns: 用户信息' are somewhat redundant with the English text, but the overall structure is compact and scannable. It earns its place without excessive verbosity.
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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It lists return fields but does not explain when fields may be undefined, whether authentication is required, or how the result should be interpreted. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a clear gap in completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents the two parameters (args array and windowId). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'sys_Environment.getUserInfo()' retrieves user information, listing the exact fields returned (username, nickname, avatar, uuid, customerCode). It is clear this is a read-only getter for user info, and the name itself distinguishes it from sibling environment tools like version checks or mode checks.
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 sibling list includes many environment-related tools (e.g., is_client, is_online_mode, get_editor_current_version), but the description does not explain when user info is needed or contrast it with those. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.