eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitives_by_primitive_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets primitives and returns all properties; it does not mention whether it is read-only, what happens if IDs are invalid, or any side effects. For a getter it is presumably safe, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 to the point, containing the signature, a purpose line, and a returns line. It is concise, though the Chinese purpose and returns lines are somewhat redundant, echoing each other.

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 and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return structure (just 'all properties'), how to pass multiple IDs (implicitly via the signature), or any error behavior. The lack of guidance on when to use it and the absence of safety declaration make it incomplete for an agent to rely on confidently.

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 provides the function signature with type `Array<string>` for ids, which adds meaning beyond the generic schema `args` array. It also implies the strings are primitive IDs via the description. However, it does not explain the structure of the `args` array or the `windowId` parameter, so the schema's vague descriptions are only partially compensated.

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 verb (get) and resource (primitives) with a specific condition (by IDs), and the return value (all properties). It is distinguishable from siblings like the singular `get_primitive_by_primitive_id` because it explicitly handles multiple IDs and returns all properties, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 alternatives such as `eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id` for single IDs or `eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitives_bbox` for bounding boxes. The context is implied (when you have multiple primitive IDs) but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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