eda_pcb_primitive_component_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the return type (IPCB_PrimitiveComponent) and failure semantics (`undefined` indicates fetch failure), which is real behavioral context. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it) or describe what happens with invalid IDs beyond undefined.

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 definition is compact: a signature line, a one-line action, and a return/failure note. No filler or redundant restatement of the name. It is efficiently front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information.

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 operation, the core facts (what it does, return type, failure behavior) are present. Gaps remain: the plural 'primitiveIds' versus singular return type is unresolved, there is no hint of where to obtain valid IDs, and there is no disambiguation from sibling getters in this very large tool ecosystem.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are generic wrappers ('args array in official signature order', 'windowId'). The description's signature line adds the real parameter name `primitiveIds: string`, marginally improving on the schema. However, it does not clarify whether primitiveIds accepts a single ID or a list, or what ID format is expected.

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 opens with the full API signature `pcb_PrimitiveComponent.get(primitiveIds: string)` and the action '获取器件' (get component), establishing a clear verb+resource. However, in a toolset with many sibling getters (eda_pcb_primitive_component_get_all, eda_pcb_primitive_object_get, eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id), it does not differentiate which one an agent should choose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are given. Given the dense sibling namespace (component get_all, object_get, generic primitive getter), an agent has no basis to select this tool over them.

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