eda_pcb_primitive_fill_get_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only getter operation and discloses the return type, which is good baseline transparency. However, it does not discuss side effects, current-window scope, or whether the result set is affected by visibility or selection state; for a simple getter this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 and front-loaded with the API signature, purpose, and return type. Every part contributes to understanding the call, though the Chinese return note slightly duplicates the signature's return type. Overall it is tight and easy to scan.

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 straightforward list-retrieval tool with low complexity, the description covers the essential invocation contract: signature, optional filters, and return type. The windowId parameter is documented in the schema. Missing details are non-critical nuances like parameter semantics and output object shape, which are not fully specified but not fatal for a get-all operation.

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 schema only provides a generic 'args' array, so the description's signature adds meaningful parameter names, types, and order: layer, net, and primitiveLock. This is essential for correctly constructing the call. It still omits deeper semantics such as what primitiveLock actually filters or valid values for TPCB_LayersOfFill, so it is not a 5.

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 ('获取所有填充' / get all fills) and identifies the resource as PCB fill primitives, returning an array of IPCB_PrimitiveFill objects. The explicit API signature and return type distinguish it from the sibling get_all_primitive_id tool, which returns only IDs. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 'get all fills' phrase implies the core use case, and the optional parameters suggest filtering by layer, net, and primitive lock state. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_all_primitive_id or get, nor any mention of when not to use it.

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