Gets the minimum bounding box of a polygon in EasyEDA Pro, returning the rectangle's coordinates.
sys_Math.getBBox(polygon: TSYS_MathPolygonInput) -> ISYS_MathBBox 获取多边形的最小外接矩形（BBox） returns: BBox
| 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 full burden. It states the operation is a 'get' (implying non-destructive) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, validation requirements, or error conditions. The return type is only named as 'BBox' without describing its structure or units.
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 concise: a signature line, a one-line purpose in Chinese, and a return type. Every element is functional, no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context for correct invocation. It does not explain the polygon input format, coordinate system, or what the BBox return contains. An agent would struggle to construct a valid call without external knowledge.
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 description includes the function signature with parameter name and type ('polygon: TSYS_MathPolygonInput'), but the input schema only describes 'args' as a generic array without detailing the polygon structure. The description does not explain what fields TSYS_MathPolygonInput contains, its units, or how to encode it in the args array, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
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 operation: '获取多边形的最小外接矩形（BBox）' (get the minimum bounding rectangle of a polygon), with a function signature that specifies input and output types. It distinguishes from other bbox tools (e.g., primitive-level bbox) by being polygon-specific, though it does not 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other math or bbox-related siblings. The description implies usage for polygon bbox computation, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.