eda_pcb_primitive_arc_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the function signature and states the return type, which is already implied by the name. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it selects anything), permissions, or any constraints on the window context. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 brief—only a signature, a Chinese purpose statement, and a return line. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The structure is flat, with no sections or examples, so while it earns a 3 for being short, it does not organize information effectively for an agent.

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 read-only getter, the description should at least explain the optional parameters and any prerequisites (e.g., having an active PCB). It does neither. The return type is mentioned, but not the format of individual strings. The description is not complete enough for an agent to know if this tool is appropriate or how to set the parameters 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the wrapper properties (args, windowId), but these descriptions are generic and do not explain the actual parameters 'net', 'layer', and 'primitiveLock' seen in the signature. The description includes the signature with parameter names/types but does not clarify their meaning or acceptable values. Since the schema also lacks these details, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 tool's function: '获取所有圆弧线的图元 ID' (get all primitive IDs of arc lines) and the return type is specified as an array of strings. This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_arc_get_all, which also retrieves arc primitives, so it misses the distinguishing context that would make it 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it should be used when wanting IDs of all arcs, but no explicit direction is given.

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