Close the left side panel in EasyEDA Pro to expand the canvas workspace. Specify a target window or use the active one to reduce UI clutter and focus on schematic or PCB editing.
sys_PanelControl.closeLeftPanel() -> void 关闭左侧面板
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the signature and 'close left panel' phrase, it does not disclose side effects, whether the call is a no-op if the panel is already closed, or any error behavior. The '-> void' return is minimal but not substantive.
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 short and contains no filler, but the two lines essentially restate the same information in code-signature and Chinese forms. It is not verbose, yet it is under-structured and provides little beyond the tool name.
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 UI action, the description is minimally adequate: the schema covers window targeting and the operation is clear. However, it lacks any context about panel state, prerequisites, or effects, which would help an agent use it confidently.
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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both 'args' and 'windowId'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and 'args' remains a generic array, but the schema already documents the target window behavior adequately.
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 states a specific verb and resource: '关闭左侧面板' / 'closeLeftPanel()', making it clear the tool closes the left panel. It is not confused with a generic operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling open/close panel 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?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as closing the bottom/right panel or opening the left panel. Usage is only implied by the name and Chinese phrase, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.