eda_pcb_primitive_attribute_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Array<IPCB_PrimitiveAttribute>) and a Chinese note about returning an array of attribute primitives, but does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether parameters are required, what happens with no arguments, or any side effects. The signature shows optional parameters but does not explain behavior when omitted. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 very short and concise, but the structure is a mix of a code signature, a Chinese phrase, and a return line. It is not front-loaded with a clear natural-language purpose statement; the signature is somewhat redundant given the tool name. It is compact but not well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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, and the description only mentions the return type without explaining what an attribute is, what the parameters mean, or any operational context (e.g., active document requirement). The tool has three optional parameters, and the description provides no guidance on how they affect the result. For a getter with this complexity, the description is significantly incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without additional domain knowledge.

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 describes 'args' as a generic array of JSON parameters and 'windowId', with no individual parameter descriptions. The description provides the function signature listing parameter names (parentPrimitiveId, layer, primitiveLock) and their types, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's vague 'args' array. However, it does not explain what each parameter means or how to use them, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names alone.

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 name clearly indicates 'get all attributes' for PCB primitives, and the description includes a function signature 'pcb_PrimitiveAttribute.getAll' with a Chinese phrase '获取所有属性' (get all attributes) and a return line. It states the verb (get all) and resource (PCB primitive attributes), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_attribute_get (single attribute) or get_all_primitive_id. The name itself distinguishes it, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open PCB document), when to use the optional parameters, or contrast with eda_pcb_primitive_attribute_get (single) or get_all_primitive_id. The description is purely declarative and offers no selection criteria.

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