Opens a specified UI window in EasyEDA Pro, optionally passing arguments and targeting a specific EDA window. Use to programmatically launch or navigate between UI panels.
sys_Window.openUI(uiName: string, args?: Record<string, any>) -> Promise 打开 UI 窗口 remarks: 非公开接口使用提醒：本接口按原样提供，不提供参数的额外文档，参数可能在任何版本出现破坏性更改并不另行通知
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It warns that the interface is provided as-is and parameters may break, but it does not describe side effects, what 'opening' does to the current window, permission requirements, or failure behavior beyond returning a Promise.
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-loaded with the signature and one-line purpose, followed by a short caveat. It is appropriately sized, though the mixed language and terse framing keep it from being exemplary.
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?
The description does not explain how to populate the positional `args` array with `uiName`, does not clarify the relationship to the `windowId` field, gives no example, and provides no side-effect or return-behavior detail. The `Promise<void>` return is disclosed, but the overall context is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the function signature, but it introduces ambiguity: it says `args` is a `Record<string, any>` while the schema defines `args` as an array, and the `uiName` parameter appears only in the description, not in the schema. This prevents a higher score.
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 provides a concrete function signature `sys_Window.openUI(uiName: string, args?: Record<string, any>)` and states in Chinese that it opens a UI window ('打开 UI 窗口'). The verb and resource are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling window tools like `eda_sys_window_open`, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no sibling tool is mentioned. The remark only warns that the interface is non-public and may change without notice, which is a stability caveat, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.