eda_sys_file_manager_get_document_file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the return value can be undefined when no document is open or data retrieval fails, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), error behavior, or any state changes, leaving gaps for a read 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 concise, with the signature leading, followed by a brief Chinese phrase and a returns note. It is front-loaded with the essential operation and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the dual-language layout may reduce clarity for some users.

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 tool with optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, when to use it relative to other file tools, or the structure of the returned File object. The undefined-case note is helpful but insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 description includes the function signature listing parameter names and types (fileName, password, fileType) but provides no explanation of their meaning or usage. The input schema only describes an args array and windowId, so the description must compensate, but it does not clarify what password or fileType control or how they affect the result.

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 clear verb and resource ('获取文档文件' meaning 'get document file') and includes the function signature. It clarifies the operation targets the current document via the return note about 'no document currently open'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling file-manager tools like get_project_file or get_schematic_file, which also retrieve files.

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. Given the many similar file retrieval tools in the sibling list, the description fails to specify when this one is appropriate or how it differs. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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