Check whether the EDA environment is operating in half-offline mode, returning a boolean to indicate the current connectivity state.
sys_Environment.isHalfOfflineMode() -> boolean 是否为半离线模式 returns: 是否为半离线模式
| 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 merely states the return type and repeats the name. It does not disclose whether this is a safe read-only operation, what 'half offline mode' implies, or any side effects. For a query with no annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.
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 but redundant: the Chinese phrase '是否为半离线模式' appears twice, and the signature line adds no explanatory value. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking any structured explanation.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the tool's role in context. It fails to define 'half offline mode', differentiate it from the many is_* siblings, or given any scenario where an agent would need this. An agent cannot make an informed selection.
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%, with the args array and windowId both documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the meaning.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('sys_Environment.isHalfOfflineMode() -> boolean' and '是否为半离线模式'). It adds only the return type (boolean), which the name implies. It does not explain what 'half offline mode' means, leaving the purpose ambiguous beyond the literal translation.
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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling environment predicates like is_offline_mode, is_online_mode, or is_client. No mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide whether this is the right query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.