eda_pcb_primitive_fill_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 burden. It discloses the return type (array of strings) and the optional parameters (layer, net, primitiveLock), but it doesn't explain behavioral traits like whether the result is filtered by the current window, whether it returns IDs for all fills in the document, or any side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond the signature.

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 very short, which is good for conciseness, but it's mostly a restatement of the function signature. The Chinese description '获取所有填充的图元 ID' and 'returns: 填充的图元 ID 数组' are redundant with the signature. It's not poorly structured, but it doesn't earn its place with additional 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?

Given the tool's complexity (optional filters, return of IDs), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of the optional parameters, the context in which this operates (current PCB document), or how the result relates to other fill-related tools. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this gap more significant.

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 description coverage is 100% for the two top-level parameters (args and windowId), but the 'args' array items are untyped and undocumented. The description's signature lists the actual parameters (layer, net, primitiveLock) with types, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of each parameter (e.g., what TPCB_LayersOfFill values are valid, what primitiveLock means). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the signature adds value but leaves parameter semantics vague.

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 a specific verb+resource: '获取所有填充的图元 ID' (get all fill primitive IDs), which clearly identifies the operation. The function signature in the description also names the method (pcb_PrimitiveFill.getAllPrimitiveId) and its return type (Promise<Array<string>>), distinguishing it from sibling get_all_primitive_id tools for other primitive types (polyline, pour, region, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for fill primitives specifically, nor does it explain when to use get_all vs get_all_primitive_id vs get. The only context is the function signature and a terse Chinese description, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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