Close the right panel in EasyEDA Pro to free up workspace and reduce distractions, improving focus on the schematic or PCB layout.
sys_PanelControl.closeRightPanel() -> void 关闭右侧面板
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'close right panel' without mentioning any side effects, prerequisites, or impacts on UI state. This is minimal and fails to inform the agent about what happens beyond the action.
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 brief, consisting only of a function signature and a one-line Chinese translation. While it is concise, it lacks structure and informative content, making it feel more like a placeholder than a useful guide.
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 tool, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the args parameter, the behavior when windowId is omitted, or any expected outcomes. The lack of output schema is fine, but the description fails to cover essential behavioral context.
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%, and the schema already describes both parameters (args array and windowId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (close) and the resource (right panel), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like close_left_panel and close_bottom_panel. However, it provides no additional context beyond the function signature and Chinese translation, so it doesn't fully elaborate on the operation.
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 versus alternatives like open_right_panel or toggle_right_panel_lock_state. The description simply states the action without any contextual direction, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.