Scales a polygon by specified X/Y factors and optional center, returning scaled discrete points for use in EDA layouts.
sys_Math.scale(polygon: TSYS_MathPolygonInput, scaleX: number, scaleY?: number, centerX?: number, centerY?: number) -> Array 缩放多边形 returns: 缩放后的离散点数组
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('缩放后的离散点数组') but does not state whether the operation mutates the input, has side effects, or requires an active document. Essential behavioral context is missing.
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: a signature, a one-line purpose, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the most critical technical detail and contains no 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 math utility, the description gives the essential operation and return shape, but lacks usage context and parameter semantics. Without an output schema or annotations, it is only minimally complete for guiding an agent.
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 describes an args array, so the description's function signature adds meaningful type and ordering information. However, it does not explain the semantics of scaleX, scaleY, centerX, or centerY (e.g., center is the scaling pivot, scaleY defaults to scaleX). Names imply meaning but are not explicit.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: '缩放多边形' (scale polygon) and provides a full function signature. The name and description together clearly distinguish it from sibling math operations like rotate and translate.
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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether it operates on the current document, or when the caller should prefer this over other math utilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.