eda_pcb_primitive_attribute_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type and that undefined means failure, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an active document, what happens with invalid IDs, or whether it operates on the current window only. The windowId parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description.

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: a signature line, a one-line purpose, and a return note. It front-loads the call pattern and keeps the return semantics adjacent. Minor redundancy exists between the signature and the Chinese purpose line, but overall it is efficient.

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 this is nearly adequate, but the lack of any usage context, no mention of how to obtain primitiveIds, no note about window targeting, and no output schema leave gaps. The sibling list shows many similar attribute tools, and the description does not help an agent choose among them or understand failure modes beyond undefined.

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 signature line showing primitiveIds as a string and the return type, but it does not explain the format of primitiveIds (e.g., comma-separated, array, single ID) or how windowId interacts with the lookup. The schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 ('get') and resource ('属性图元' / primitive attribute), and the signature line makes the call pattern explicit. It is distinguishable from siblings like eda_sch_primitive_attribute_get_all and eda_sch_primitive_attribute_get_all_primitive_id by the singular 'get' semantics, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling attribute tools (get_all, get_all_primitive_id, modify, delete, create). The description implies a single-object lookup by primitiveIds but does not state when that is preferable to batch retrieval or how to obtain the primitiveIds.

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