eda_sys_panel_control_is_bottom_panel_locked

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it only restates the function signature and return type. It doesn't disclose whether locking is a user-visible UI state vs a programmatic lock, whether it reads the active window by default, or any side effects/errors. The return type Promise<boolean> is actually presented as an inline signature, which is some value, but the Chinese description adds only the query semantics.

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?

It is short, but it mixes formatting: code signature plus Chinese explanation plus a redundant 'returns: 是否已锁定' line. It loses focus by showing the internal method signature rather than plain tool semantics, though it remains compact.

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 read-only state query, the essential purpose is conveyed, and the schema documents the only meaningful parameter (windowId). However, it lacks clarity about what 'locked' means, what the return value is beyond a type name, and whether windowId defaults to the active window (which is stated in the schema, not the description).

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are simple (args array and windowId string). The description doesn't describe the args array contents or windowId behavior beyond the schema, but with zero required parameters the schema covers the shape; baseline 3 applies.

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: it queries (查询) whether the bottom panel is locked (是否已锁定), matching the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings that open/close/toggle panels, and from the left/right panel lock queries, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 makes the tool's purpose (querying lock state) clear, which implies when to use it, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. The windowId parameter semantics (omit for active window) are in the schema, not the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.