Retrieve localized UI text by tag, namespace, and language, substituting {1} placeholders with provided arguments.
sys_I18n.text(tag: string, namespace?: string, language?: string, ...args: Array) -> string
输出语言文本
remarks: 可以使用 ${1} 格式的占位符表示参数；
语言优先级：当前显示语言 > 系统默认语言 > 数据集中第一个搜索到的包含该文本标签的语言 > 文本标签(tag) returns: 语言文本
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses placeholder syntax, language resolution priority, and fallback to the tag itself, which are key behaviors. However, it doesn't mention error cases or behavior when the tag is missing from all languages.
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 informative, using a signature line and concise remarks. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential details without unnecessary 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 tool, the description covers the function signature, placeholder usage, language priority, and return type. Missing an explicit example or error behavior, but overall 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 schema only shows args and windowId, but the description explains the actual function parameters (tag, namespace, language, args) and their order/types. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, though windowId is not explained in the description (schema covers it).
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 retrieves localized language text via a function signature and explains output type. It distinguishes itself from sibling i18n tools (e.g., eda_sys_i18n_get_current_language) by focusing on text retrieval for a tag, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies use when needing localized text for a tag, but doesn't explicitly state when to avoid it or contrast with other i18n tools. The language priority explanation provides some usage context, but no direct alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.