eda_pcb_primitive_fill_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: `undefined` indicates failure, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it targets the current board, or any error-handling nuances (e.g., throws vs. undefined). For a simple getter, the failure-mode note provides some transparency, but it is incomplete.

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 extremely concise, at two lines, and leads with the function signature. It avoids unnecessary prose Section. However, it mixes English signature with Chinese text, which might slightly hinder English-only readers, but it is tightly packed and free of fluff.

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 getter tool, it lacks critical context: how to obtain primitive IDs (e.g., via `get_all_primitive_id`), whether the parameter is a single ID or multiple, and any dependencies on the current document or window. The absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should fill these gaps but does not.

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 adds the parameter name `primitiveIds` and its type (`string`) via the signature, which is absent from the schema's generic `args` array. However, it does not explain the meaning of the parameter (e.g., single ID vs. comma-separated list) or how to obtain valid IDs. The schema coverage is generic (array of args), so the description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.

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 ('获取填充' / 'get fill') and the resource (PCB fill primitive). The signature shows it takes a primitiveIds parameter and returns a fill object. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like `eda_pcb_primitive_fill_get_all`, the singular naming and return type ('填充图元对象') imply a single object, distinguishing it adequately from bulk retrieval functions.

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 such as `get_all` or `get_all_primitive_id`. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing valid primitive IDs from another call) or when it should be preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and signature alone.

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