Extract project configuration details from an EasyEDA Pro file. Returns the engineering config information for the given file.
sys_FileManager.extractProjectInfo(data: File) -> Promise 提取文件内的工程配置信息 returns: 工程配置信息
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states that it extracts project config info and returns it, but does not mention side effects, permissions, errors, or what 'project config' specifically includes. The behavior is essentially opaque beyond the basic 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 extremely concise, almost minimal, containing only a signature and a translation. While there is zero waste, it lacks substantive content. It is not front-loaded with any usage hints or clarifications; it is merely a restatement of the tool's obvious function.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (file extraction) and the presence of many sibling extract tools, the description is insufficient. There is no mention of supported file types, differences from extract_lib_info, error behavior, or what specific project configuration data is returned. An agent would likely struggle to decide when this tool is appropriate.
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 parameters are already documented. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain the expected structure of the File input or the output format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high 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 states a specific action: extract project configuration information from a file. This is clear and distinct from generic operations. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool eda_sys_file_manager_extract_lib_info, so an agent could confuse which to use for a given file type.
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 versus alternatives like extract_lib_info or other file manager extractors. The description is just the function signature and a literal translation, with no context about input requirements, prerequisites, or scenarios where it is the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.