eda_sys_file_system_get_eda_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral responsibility. It clearly discloses that the call returns a Promise<string>, the path format (no trailing slash), and two conditions that will always throw an Error (browser environment, missing external interaction permission). These are critical, non-obvious behaviors that an agent must know before invocation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then presents remarks and notes in a structured, scannable format. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (three notes), but each sentence carries relevant information about return format or error conditions, so nothing is redundant.

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 a well-defined return type and two parameters covered in the schema, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints (error conditions) and return format. It does not mention alternative tools, but the simplicity of the operation makes it sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (args and windowId) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable but does not enhance understanding of how to use the parameters.

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 (获取/Get) and resource (EDA 文档目录路径/EDA document directory path), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_documents_path or get_libraries_paths due to the specific 'get_eda_path' naming and the explicit return description.

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 does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It only mentions environmental constraints (client-only, requires permission) but does not help an agent decide between this and the several other file-system path getters in the sibling list.

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