eda_pcb_net_get_all_primitives_by_net

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns an array of primitive objects; it does not mention whether it is read-only, whether any side effects occur, error conditions, performance implications, or prerequisites. For a data-fetching operation, this is a significant gap.

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, containing only a signature and a brief Chinese explanation. However, it lacks structure; it does not separate purpose, parameters, or return value into clear sections, and mixing English and Chinese may reduce clarity. It is short but not optimally organized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned array contains and any constraints. It only says '图元对象数组' (array of primitive objects), which is vague. Additionally, the windowId parameter from the schema is not mentioned in the description, leaving its usage unexplained. The description is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 description includes the signature with parameter names and types (net: string, primitiveTypes?: Array<EPCB_PrimitiveType>), which adds meaning beyond the generic args/windowId schema. However, it does not explain what 'net' refers to (net name, ID, or other identifier) nor does it list or describe the possible values of EPCB_PrimitiveType. The meaning of the parameters remains ambiguous.

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 the action: '获取关联指定网络的所有图元' (get all primitives associated with the specified net). It includes the full API signature, making the purpose explicit and unambiguous. No other sibling tool performs this exact operation, so it is easily distinguished from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other net-related tools such as eda_pcb_net_get_all_nets or eda_pcb_net_get_net. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when an alternative would be more appropriate. The user must 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.