eda_pcb_primitive_image_get_all_primitive_id

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'get' and repeats the return type. It does not explain default filtering when layer/primitiveLock are omitted, whether locked primitives are included, or any async/error behavior beyond Promise<Array<string>>.

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 official signature, followed by a one-line Chinese summary and a return note. The return note is slightly redundant with the signature, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 ID-listing getter, the core operation and return type are clear, and the schema covers windowId. However, with no annotations or output schema, the optional parameter semantics and default scope of 'all' are underspecified, which could lead an agent to use the tool incorrectly.

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 schema only describes a generic args array and windowId, so the signature line adds the actual parameter names, types, and order: layer?: TPCB_LayersOfImage, primitiveLock?: boolean. However, it does not define valid layer values or what primitiveLock controls, so the meaning is only partially conveyed.

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 operation: get all primitive IDs belonging to image primitives, via the official method name pcb_PrimitiveImage.getAllPrimitiveId. The 'image' qualifier distinguishes it from the many sibling get_all_primitive_id tools for arcs, vias, pours, etc.

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, such as whether to use it instead of get/get_all when only primitive IDs are needed. The only selection clue is the resource type embedded in the name and signature.

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