eda_sys_panel_control_is_left_panel_locked

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the behavioral profile. It does state this is an asynchronous query returning a boolean (`Promise<boolean>`), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly say there are no side effects, nor describe behavior when no window is specified or the panel state cannot be determined.

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-loads the canonical signature before the Chinese explanation. The only minor redundancy is that the final 'returns' line restates what the first two lines already express, but overall there is no significant fluff or missing structural clarity.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: operation, return type, and return meaning. It is reasonably complete given the low complexity, though it would be marginally better with a note that calling it has no side effects and that `windowId` is optional via the schema.

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 already covers both parameters: `args` is described as an ordered JSON parameter array and `windowId` is described as the target EDA window with a default. The description adds the useful fact that the underlying API signature takes no positional arguments, but it does not explain how `args` or `windowId` should be populated for this specific tool.

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 tool queries whether the left panel is locked, with the exact API signature `isLeftPanelLocked() -> Promise<boolean>`. It identifies both the verb and the resource, and the explicit 'left panel' wording distinguishes it from the sibling tools `is_bottom_panel_locked` and `is_right_panel_locked`.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the bottom/right panel lock checkers or the panel toggle/lock-state tools. The usage is only implied by the name and the phrase '查询左侧面板是否已锁定', so an agent gets no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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