eda_sys_file_manager_get_schematic_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return behavior: returns File | undefined, and explains that undefined means no schematic page is open or data fetch failed. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether this is read-only, but the function name and 'get' imply a read operation. The description adds the failure semantics, which is useful, but lacks depth on what 'File' contains or any 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 compact: a signature line, a short Chinese summary, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the signature and summary. The bilingual content is slightly redundant (the signature and summary repeat the same information), but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic call shape and return semantics. It lacks details about the File object structure, the meaning of password, and how fileType affects the result. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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% for the two top-level parameters (args and windowId), but the args array items are untyped ({}), so the actual parameters fileName, password, and fileType are only visible in the description's signature line. The description does add meaning by listing the parameter names, types, and defaults, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the semantics of each parameter (e.g., what password is for, what fileType values mean), so it only partially compensates.

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 verb and resource: 'getSchematicFile' retrieves a schematic file, with a Chinese summary '获取原理图文件' (get schematic file). It is distinguishable from siblings like eda_sys_file_manager_get_document_file or eda_sys_file_manager_get_project_file because it targets schematic files specifically. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it loses a point.

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?

The description implies usage: call this when you need the schematic file data, optionally with a filename, password, and file type. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like eda_sys_file_manager_get_document_file. The return note ('undefined' means no schematic page open or fetch failed) gives some context for interpreting results, but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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