eda_pcb_primitive_image_get_all

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate this is a read-only getAll operation returning an array, but it doesn't explain side effects, active-document requirements, the effect of `primitiveLock`, or potential performance implications. The disclosure is minimal.

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 and front-loaded with the signature, followed by a short Chinese summary and return type. There is minor redundancy between the signature and the `returns:` line, but no filler or irrelevant content.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply enough context for correct invocation. It gives the return type but omits parameter semantics, filtering effects, and any practical guidance on when this call is appropriate. For a tool with two optional parameters and a non-obvious `primitiveLock` flag, this is insufficient.

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 input schema only documents `args` and `windowId`, but the description adds the official signature with `layer?: TPCB_LayersOfImage` and `primitiveLock?: boolean`, which provides useful order and type information. However, it does not explain what layer values are valid or what `primitiveLock` actually controls, so semantic coverage remains incomplete.

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 and resource: `pcb_PrimitiveImage.getAll` and '获取所有图像' (get all images), with a return type of `Array<IPCB_PrimitiveImage>`. This clearly identifies it as a fetch-all operation for image primitives, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `eda_pcb_primitive_image_get` or `eda_pcb_primitive_image_get_all_primitive_id`.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetching a single image or only primitive IDs. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering behavior, or cases where `get_all_primitive_id` would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the name and brief Chinese description.

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