eda_pcb_primitive_component_get_all_primitive_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a read/query operation returning Promise<Array<string>>, but it does not explain scope (e.g., active document vs entire board), the meaning of the layer and primitiveLock parameters, or any side effects. There is no annotation contradiction because no annotations exist.

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 and front-loaded with the API signature, followed by a short Chinese summary and return type. There is minor redundancy between the signature, the Chinese gloss, and the returns line, but no filler or irrelevant content.

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 with no required parameters, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent can invoke it with no arguments and understand the return type. However, since there is no output schema and the optional parameters' semantics are undocumented, an agent cannot confidently use filtering options or fully understand the operation's scope.

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 signature adds parameter names and types (layer?: TPCB_LayersOfComponent, primitiveLock?: boolean) that the generic args array schema does not provide. However, it does not explain what these parameters do, what values are valid, or how they affect the returned IDs, so semantic enrichment is only partial.

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 action: getting all primitive IDs of components ('获取所有器件的图元 ID'), with a specific resource and return type. The included pcb_PrimitiveComponent signature also disambiguates it from the many schematic and other primitive-type get_all_primitive_id siblings.

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 usage is implied by the tool name and description: call it when you need all primitive IDs belonging to PCB components. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as component_get_all, other get_all_primitive_id variants, or get_primitive_by_primitive_id, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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