eda_pcb_primitive_image_get

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

The description notes that 'undefined' indicates failure, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not mention read-only status, side effects, or error conditions beyond the undefined return. It lacks disclosure of any mutation potential or permission requirements.

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 and to the point, but it is structured as a code signature rather than a clear tool description. It front-loads the signature but lacks a proper sentence explaining the tool's function and usage. It is concise but not well-organized for an agent.

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, the description is incomplete: it omits the windowId parameter entirely, does not explain the args array structure, and provides no information about the returned IPCB_PrimitiveImage object's fields. It also does not mention any side effects or error handling beyond the undefined return. Given the complexity of the sibling set, more context would be needed.

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 mentions primitiveIds: string but the input schema expects an 'args' array in official signature order. This mapping is not explained, so the agent may not know how to pass the parameter. The windowId parameter from the schema is not mentioned at all. The description adds little beyond the schema, which already has descriptions for args and windowId.

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 '获取图像' (get image) and the function signature 'pcb_PrimitiveImage.get(primitiveIds: string)' makes it clear this retrieves a PCB primitive image object. However, it does not explicitly describe the tool's role among siblings or provide a natural-language explanation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_pcb_primitive_image_get_all or other primitive getters. No context about selection criteria or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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