eda_sys_panel_control_is_right_panel_locked

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>) and the read-only nature of the operation through the verb '查询' (query). For a simple state getter, this is reasonably transparent, though it does not mention error behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded with the method signature, followed by the Chinese purpose and return meaning. There is minor redundancy between '查询右侧面板是否已锁定' and 'returns: 是否已锁定', but it contains no unnecessary sentences.

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 boolean getter, the description covers the core behavior, the async return type, and the return meaning, while the schema covers the parameters. It lacks explicit guidance about choosing this over sibling panel-state tools, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly.

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%: args is described as the ordered JSON argument array, and windowId is described as the target EDA window with omission falling back to the active window. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 the specific operation (sys_PanelControl.isRightPanelLocked()) and its meaning: '查询右侧面板是否已锁定' (query whether the right panel is locked), with a boolean return. It clearly identifies the right panel, distinguishing it from sibling tools like is_left_panel_locked and is_bottom_panel_locked. Not tautological or vague.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not reference sibling lock-control tools such as toggle_right_panel_lock_state. The intended use is implied by the name and 'query right panel locked', but alternatives are not stated.

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