eda_sys_file_manager_get_document_footprint_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries some burden and does disclose that failures return an empty array and that the result is an array of footprintUuid/documentSource objects. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, document context, or how windowId/args affect execution.

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 compact and front-loads the method signature, Chinese summary, and return behavior with no filler. The duplication between the code signature and the Chinese summary is minor, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully provides the return type and failure behavior. However, it omits when to use this tool, what footprint sources semantically represent, and how the target document is selected, leaving moderate gaps for an unannotated getter.

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 baseline is 3, and the schema already documents args and windowId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and even shows a parameterless method signature, which could be mildly confusing but not contradictory.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('get document footprint sources') and includes a concrete return type of footprintUuid/documentSource pairs. This makes it reasonably distinct from sibling file-manager getters, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 the many sibling file-manager getters such as get_document_source or get_footprint_file_by_footprint_uuid. The description only provides a method signature and return behavior, leaving selection to inference.

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