Check whether the current EDA environment is the JLC EDA Pro edition, returning a boolean to guide edition-specific logic.
sys_Environment.isJLCEDAProEdition() -> boolean 是否为 嘉立创EDA 专业版本 returns: 是否为嘉立创EDA 专业版本
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the return type and meaning, and never explicitly states that this is a side-effect-free read-only query or describes error behavior or environment prerequisites.
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-loaded with the signature, but the English and Chinese lines are repetitive: the same predicate and return meaning appear three times. It could be reduced to a single sentence without losing information.
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 boolean environment check, the core purpose and return type are present, which is mostly adequate. However, the lack of usage guidance, explicit read-only framing, or a note that no arguments are expected leaves meaningful gaps in an otherwise minimal description.
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 coverage is 100%, so the generic args and windowId parameters are documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify that the function signature implies zero arguments, leaving the agent to interpret the generic schema.
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 tool returns a boolean indicating whether the environment is JLC EDA Pro edition, which distinguishes it from siblings like eda_sys_environment_is_easy_edapro_edition and is_pro_private_edition. However, it largely restates the tool name and relies on the implied 'is' rather than an explicit action verb.
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 given about when to call this tool versus the many sibling environment checks such as is_easy_edapro_edition, is_offline_mode, or is_web. The agent is left to infer selection criteria 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.