eda_pcb_document_get_primitives_in_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' primitives, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or any performance implications. The return type is a Promise of an array, but no details about the contents or any potential filtering behavior are given. This is a significant gap for a getter without annotation support.

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 short and includes the method signature and return type, which is useful. However, it is not structured well—it mixes the signature, a Chinese phrase, and a return description in a single line. It is concise but not elegantly organized, and the Chinese text is redundant with the signature.

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 lacks essential context for an agent to use it correctly. It does not specify the coordinate system or units for left/right/top/bottom, nor what IPCB_Primitive contains. There is no mention of whether the region is inclusive/exclusive, how it relates to the canvas origin, or any prerequisites like a valid document. Given the complexity of PCB geometry, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema only defines an 'args' array with a generic description about order. The actual parameters (left, right, top, bottom, leftToRight?) are listed in the description, but their meaning is not explained. No units, coordinate system, or semantics for leftToRight are provided. The schema has 100% coverage only for the args container, not the individual parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond names.

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: it gets all primitives within a region of a PCB document. The phrase '获取区域内所有图元' clearly conveys the action. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_primitive_at_point (point vs region) and get_primitives_bbox (bounding box), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer it over get_primitive_at_point or other region-based queries. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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