Check if two bounding boxes intersect in EasyEDA Pro. Accepts two bbox objects and returns a boolean to detect collisions or validate spatial relationships.
sys_Math.bboxIntersects(bbox1: ISYS_MathBBox, bbox2: ISYS_MathBBox) -> boolean 快速判断两个 BBox 是否相交 returns: 是否相交
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function signature and return type, without revealing edge-case behavior (e.g., whether touching edges count as intersecting), error conditions, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and signature already imply.
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 concise, with a single sentence of purpose and a return note. It is well-structured with the signature first, then the Chinese summary. No redundancy or filler is present. It earns a high score for efficiency.
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 pure function, the description is incomplete from an agent's perspective. It lacks usage guidance, behavior details, and does not explain the windowId parameter's relevance. The description does not clarify how to format the bbox arguments or what to expect on errors, leaving gaps that an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.
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 covers both parameters (args and windowId) with descriptions, and the function signature provides the parameter names and types (bbox1, bbox2: ISYS_MathBBox). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the generic 'args' array description. However, the description does not detail how to construct ISYS_MathBBox objects or the exact ordering of arguments, so it does not fully compensate for the schema's generic array.
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 function's purpose: to quickly determine whether two bounding boxes intersect. It specifies a verb ('判断') and the resource ('两个 BBox'), and the signature clarifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling math tools like eda_sys_math_intersects, which also deals with intersection detection.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or scenarios where bboxIntersects is preferable to other math tools (e.g., eda_sys_math_intersects for general shapes). It leaves the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.