eda_sys_tool_schematic_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type is a promise and result, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies documents, requires active window, or opens UI). It does not specify if it is read-only or if it performs analysis only. The description is minimal and does not explain destructive or mutating behavior, which is risky for a tool that might change state.

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 short (two lines), and while concision is good, it omits essential information. It includes the function signature, which is partially duplicative of the input schema but not fully explanatory. The Chinese label '原理图对比' is redundant with the tool name. The description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, as it does not earn its place by adding meaning.

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?

Given the complexity of three possible input types for each schematic and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the comparison result contains, or how to handle input types (e.g., file paths vs project references). The sibling tools for netlist and PCB comparison suggest a family, but without cross-referencing, the agent lacks sufficient context to invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100%, but the 'args' parameter is an array of unspecified items with description '按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组' (JSON parameter array in official signature order). The description provides no additional details on the structure of each element, which is critical because the signature indicates two schematics each can be string, object, or File. Without field-level details, the agent cannot know how to construct the args array correctly.

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 '原理图对比' (schematic comparison) and returns '原理图对比结果', which indicates comparing two schematics. However, it does not specify what aspects are compared (e.g., netlist, primitives, layout) or how it differs from sibling tools like eda_sys_tool_netlist_comparison and eda_pcb_tool_pcb_comparison. The purpose is clear but not differentiated strongly.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus the similarly named netlist comparison or pcb comparison. It lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites (like open projects/schematics), or when to prefer alternatives. The agent would have to infer that this is for full schematic comparison, not just netlists or PCBs.

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