Retrieves project directory paths in EDA. Use to locate project storage locations when working in the desktop client.
sys_FileSystem.getProjectsPaths() -> Promise<Array>
获取工程目录路径
remarks: 注意 1：本接口仅半、全离线客户端有效，在浏览器环境内调用将始终 throw Error
注意 2：本接口需要使用者启用扩展的外部交互权限，如若未启用将始终 throw Error
returns: 工程目录路径数组
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it always throws an Error in browser environments and when external interaction permission is not enabled, and it states the return type. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not mention potential edge cases like empty arrays or path format.
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-loaded: a one-line signature, a one-line purpose, two precise notes on failure conditions, and a return type. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 no output schema, the description covers the essential details: return type, failure conditions, and purpose. It does not elaborate on the exact meaning of 'project directory paths' or how the paths are structured, but this is likely self-evident from the name and the function signature. Overall, the description is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 does not mention parameters at all. However, the input schema has descriptions for both args and windowId (coverage 100%), and the function signature shows no parameters (getProjectsPaths()), so the description need not compensate. The generic schema descriptions are sufficient for an agent to understand the parameters, but no additional detail is provided.
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: '获取工程目录路径' (get project directory paths), and includes the full function signature with return type (Promise<Array<string>>). This clearly differentiates it from other file system functions by specifying it returns project paths specifically.
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 explicitly lists two conditions under which the tool will throw an Error (browser environment, missing external interaction permission), which gives clear guidance on when it is safe to invoke. However, it does not mention any alternative tool for getting paths in other environments, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.