eda_sys_shortcut_key_get_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns about the standalone-script throw, the extension-only constraint, and the inability to fetch system shortcut data. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the structure of the returned record or explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free.

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 reasonably concise and organized with labels (remarks, note, since, returns) and front-loads the signature before the Chinese explanation. There is minor redundancy between the opening line and the remarks, but the unique constraints about system shortcut keys and extension-only usage justify their place.

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 zero-argument read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (all extension shortcut key data), what is excluded (system shortcut keys), and the critical environment caveat (throws in standalone scripts). The main gap is the lack of field-level documentation for the ISYS_ShortcutKeyDataWithUserDefinedShortcutKey type, but the type name gives some semantic clues.

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%, but the schema only describes generic wrapper arguments (args and windowId). The description adds value by showing the official signature 'sys_ShortcutKey.getAll()', which implies that the args array should be empty and no positional parameters are expected. It does not explicitly document the wrapper parameters, but the signature is a useful hint.

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 a specific operation and resource: 'sys_ShortcutKey.getAll()' returning 'Record<string, ISYS_ShortcutKeyDataWithUserDefinedShortcutKey>' and '获取所有快捷键数据' (get all shortcut key data). It also scopes the resource to '本扩展的所有快捷键数据' (all shortcut keys of this extension) and explicitly excludes system shortcut keys, which helps differentiate it from sibling shortcut-key tools. However, it never names sibling alternatives like get_shortcut_keys, so full sibling discrimination is left to the reader.

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 clear when-not conditions: '本接口无法获取系统快捷键数据' (cannot get system shortcut keys) and '本接口仅扩展有效，在独立脚本环境内调用将始终 throw Error' (only valid in extensions; standalone scripts always throw). These are explicit exclusions, but no alternative tools are named for those cases, so it stops short of full guidance.

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