eda_sys_i18n_get_current_language

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful caution: the language returned is limited to those supported by EDA, and other APIs may require explicit 'language' parameters. This clarifies behavioral scope. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any error conditions, return format specifics, or side effects. The 'Promise<string>' signature partially implies a read operation, but the description could be more explicit.

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 very short (three lines) and avoids redundancy, though the signature line 'sys_I18n.getCurrentLanguage()' might be considered redundant with the name. It efficiently states purpose, a key remark, and return type. No waste, but the structure could be improved by front-loading the most essential usage information.

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 is mostly adequate. It states the return type (Promise<string>) and a limitation. However, it lacks details on the return value format (e.g., language code vs. name), and it doesn't explain the optional 'windowId' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the description could still clarify the intended use case. Overall, it is complete enough for an experienced user but not fully self-contained.

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% (both 'args' and 'windowId' have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, only repeating the function signature without args. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取当前语言环境' (get current language environment). This specifies a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from related i18n tools like 'get_all_supported_languages' even though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The function signature reinforces the intent.

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 alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'eda_sys_i18n_get_all_supported_languages' or 'eda_sys_i18n_is_language_supported', nor does it describe scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. The only contextual clue is the remark, which hints at limitations but not usage context.

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