Retrieves all properties of a PCB primitive using its unique ID, enabling inspection and modification of design elements.
pcb_Primitive.getPrimitiveByPrimitiveId(id: string) -> Promise<IPCB_Primitive | undefined> 获取指定 ID 的图元的所有属性 returns: 图元的所有属性
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It indicates a getter operation that returns all properties, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, what occurs if the ID is invalid (though the signature hints at `undefined`), or any side effects. The return type `Promise<IPCB_Primitive | undefined>` is given, but without elaboration.
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, with the code signature front-loaded and a concise bilingual explanation. It has no verbosity, and the essential return type is included. While it could be more structured, it is appropriately short.
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 two parameters (`args`, `windowId`) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to populate `args`, the meaning of `windowId` (beyond the schema's generic description), or what happens when the ID is not found. It covers the return value but misses critical invocation details.
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 meaning by including `id: string` in the signature, identifying the primitive ID parameter. However, the actual input schema uses a generic `args` array, and the description does not clarify how to structure the array (e.g., that `id` should be the first element). It partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail on `args`.
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 tool fetches all attributes of a primitive given its ID, via the signature `getPrimitiveByPrimitiveId(id: string)`. This is a specific verb and resource, and the singular focus on 'primitive' distinguishes it from siblings that retrieve types or multiple primitives.
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 like `eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitives_by_primitive_id` or `eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitive_type_by_primitive_id`. It merely shows the function signature and return type, leaving selection to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.