eda_pcb_primitive_component_get_all_property_names

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 does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior, empty results, or any side effects. The function name implies a getter, but the description adds no explicit behavioral context beyond the return type.

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 short but redundant: the Chinese phrase '获取所有器件的所有属性名称集合' appears twice (once in the main text and once after 'returns:'). The function signature is included, but the repetition wastes space without adding 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 getter with no output schema, the description adequately states the return type and what is returned (property names). However, it does not mention edge cases, error handling, or how this differs from other component-related getters, which would be helpful given the large sibling set.

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%: both 'args' and 'windowId' have descriptions. However, the description does not clarify that 'args' should be an empty array for this parameterless function, or explain how to pass parameters. It adds no value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the function name, return type (Promise<Array<string>>), and explains in Chinese that it retrieves all property names of all components. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that get component objects or primitive IDs, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling component-related tools (e.g., get_all, get_all_primitive_id). The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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