Retrieve the active EDA window's current theme (light or dark) to adjust UI elements accordingly.
sys_Window.getCurrentTheme() -> Promise 获取当前主题 remarks: 获取当前 EDA 主题，浅色 或 深色 returns: 当前主题
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the current theme and specifies the possible values (light/dark). However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can fail, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.
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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded and the remarks/returns sections adding relevant detail. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, though the Chinese text is somewhat repetitive ('获取当前主题' appears twice).
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 return type and possible values. It doesn't explain the windowId parameter's effect on the result or whether the theme is per-window or global, which could matter for correct invocation. Overall adequate but with minor gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (args and windowId). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: '获取当前主题' (get current theme) and clarifies the return type as ESYS_Theme with possible values 浅色 (light) or 深色 (dark). This is clear and distinct from siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 implies usage context: it retrieves the current EDA theme, which is a read-only query. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but among the sibling tools, none are theme-related, so the context is fairly clear. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.