Opens a folder selection dialog to read all files from a chosen directory, returning their relative paths and file contents for processing.
sys_FileSystem.openReadFolderDialog() -> Promise<Array<{ relativePath: string; file: File }>> 打开读入文件夹窗口 returns: 读取到的所有文件及其路径信息
| 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a dialog is opened and files are returned, but does not disclose that the dialog is modal, that the user must interact with it, what happens on cancellation, or whether the operation is read-only. For a UI-driven operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 concise and front-loads the core purpose. It includes the method signature, a one-line Chinese description, and a return type annotation. There is no fluff, but it could be more structured with explicit headings. Overall, it is efficient and readable.
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 dialog opener, the description covers the basic purpose and return type. However, it lacks details on user interaction, cancellation behavior, the meaning of relativePath (relative to what), and whether subfolders are included. Without an output schema or annotations, more context is needed for an agent to call this correctly and interpret the result. The description is minimally adequate but leaves these gaps.
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 has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (args and windowId), so the schema already explains them. The description adds no extra meaning about what the args array should contain for this specific function (e.g., whether any arguments are needed). It does not compensate for any gaps, but given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the action clearly: 'Open read folder dialog' and indicates the return type (array of files with relative paths). It is distinct from the sibling tools like open_read_file_dialog and open_read_folder_path_dialog by focusing on opening a folder and reading files. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, which are similarly named.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (open_read_file_dialog, open_read_file_path_dialog, open_read_folder_path_dialog). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.