eda_pcb_primitive_attribute_get_all_primitive_id

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type and a brief returns note, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a getter, read-only is implied but not stated, and nothing beyond the signature is revealed.

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 but poorly structured. It leads with the full function signature, then a Chinese phrase that repeats the purpose, then a returns line. The purpose is not front-loaded for English readers, and the inclusion of both signature and redundant Chinese sentence wastes space. It is not efficiently 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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters' semantics, when to use them, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably construct the args array without understanding what parentPrimitiveId, layer, and primitiveLock mean and how they filter results.

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 lists parameter names and types in the signature (parentPrimitiveId, layer, primitiveLock) but provides no explanation of their meanings, defaults, or how they affect results. The schema only documents args and windowId generically, so the description is the sole source for parameter semantics, yet it offers no added meaning beyond the 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 includes the function signature and a Chinese phrase '获取所有属性的图元 ID' meaning 'get the primitive IDs of all attributes'. The verb+resource is clear: it retrieves primitive IDs for attribute primitives. The name itself distinguishes it from sibling get_all_primitive_id tools for other primitive types, and the description reinforces the attribute scope, so it is specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filtering scenarios, when the optional parameters should be supplied, or when to prefer this over the generic get_all or other get_all_primitive_id tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and signature.

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