Opens a file selection dialog to let users choose one or multiple files, returning them as File objects for further processing in EDA workflows.
sys_FileSystem.openReadFileDialog(filenameExtensions?: string | Array, multiFiles?: true) -> Promise<Array | undefined> 打开读入文件窗口 returns: File 格式文件数组
| 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 burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<Array<File> | undefined>) and that it opens a dialog, but does not mention whether this requires user interaction, whether it blocks, what happens on cancel (undefined), or any side effects. The behavior of returning undefined on cancel is implied by the type but not explained.
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 short and includes the signature, which is useful, but the Chinese description '打开读入文件窗口' is terse and the return type line is somewhat redundant with the signature. It is compact but not optimally structured for an agent.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the dialog behavior, cancellation, and file format. The signature provides some info, but an agent lacks guidance on how to handle undefined results or what file extensions to pass. Sibling tools like open_read_file_path_dialog suggest a family of similar tools, but no differentiation is provided.
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 parameters (args and windowId), but the description adds the actual signature with parameter names (filenameExtensions, multiFiles) and types. This adds meaning beyond the generic schema, but doesn't explain semantics like what filenameExtensions should look like or how multiFiles affects behavior.
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 ('open') and resource ('read file dialog'), and includes the signature with parameters and return type. It is clear this opens a file picker dialog. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like open_read_file_path_dialog or open_read_folder_dialog, though the name and signature partially do.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_read_file_path_dialog or open_read_folder_dialog. The description only says '打开读入文件窗口' (open read file window) with no context about when to choose it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.