Rotates a polygon by a given angle around a center point, returning the rotated discrete points for use in EDA projects.
sys_Math.rotate(polygon: TSYS_MathPolygonInput, angle: number, centerX?: number, centerY?: number) -> Array 旋转多边形 returns: 旋转后的离散点数组
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that rotation returns an array of discrete points, but it does not clarify angle units, rotation direction, default center behavior, or whether the input polygon is mutated.
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 front-loaded with the signature, with minimal redundancy. The Chinese phrase and returns line partially restate the signature, but the overall size is appropriate and easy to parse.
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 signature and return type provide a useful baseline, but with no annotations, no output schema, and a generic args schema, the description should also clarify angle units, default center behavior, and the structure of TSYS_MathPolygonInput. Without these, an agent may invoke the tool with correct types but produce unintended geometry.
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 input schema only offers a generic args array, but the description adds the exact parameter names, types, order, and optionality for polygon, angle, centerX, and centerY. This is essential for correctly constructing a call, though the shape of TSYS_MathPolygonInput and angle units are not explained.
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: rotating a polygon, and provides the full function signature with parameters and return type. This identifies both the action and the resource, and the name distinguishes it from sibling math tools.
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 given on when to use this tool instead of related math operations. The sibling list includes tools like scale, translate, union, and intersection, but the description does not mention alternatives or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.