Display a gray loading overlay that blocks user interactions in the EDA window while an operation runs, with no progress indicator.
sys_LoadingAndProgressBar.showLoading() -> void 显示无进度加载覆盖 remarks: 没有进度指示，但会存在与进度条一致的灰色覆盖，阻止用户进一步操作
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the gray overlay and that it blocks further user operations. However, it does not mention that the overlay persists until `destroy_loading` is called, nor does it explain stacking or per-window behavior, leaving a significant side-effect gap.
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 extremely compact: a signature line, a one-line purpose statement, and a behavioral remark. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant text.
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?
The description omits critical cleanup information—there is no mention that the loading overlay must be removed via `destroy_loading`. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should have provided this pairing guidance to prevent an agent from leaving the UI permanently blocked.
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%, and the parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., `args` is a JSON array in official signature order). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so with high coverage the baseline of 3 applies.
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 shows a loading overlay without progress ('显示无进度加载覆盖') and explicitly notes it has no progress indicator, distinguishing it from the sibling `show_progress_bar` tool. The verb-resource pair is specific and the scope of behavior is unambiguous.
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 usage context: block user interaction while an operation runs without showing progress. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over `show_progress_bar`, nor does it mention the matching `destroy_loading` tool or any when-not conditions. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.