eda_pcb_primitive_line_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return type and failure semantics: undefined means retrieval failed. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor what happens with invalid or multiple primitiveIds beyond the undefined failure case.

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-loads the essential signature, followed by a one-line Chinese summary and return semantics. There is minimal redundancy, though the phrase 获取直线 largely restates the tool's obvious purpose.

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 a weak generic schema and no output schema, the description provides the bare minimum: function signature, return type, and failure signal. It lacks enough detail about primitiveIds semantics and does not differentiate the single-get use case from the many line-related sibling tools.

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 provides a generic args array and windowId, so the description's signature adds the parameter name primitiveIds and its string type, which is helpful. It does not, however, define the expected ID format, how multiple IDs are represented, or the exact positional mapping into the args array beyond the implied signature.

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 operation: retrieving a line primitive (获取直线), with a concrete function signature and return type. It is identifiable as a single-line lookup by primitiveIds, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as eda_pcb_primitive_line_get_all or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_pcb_primitive_line_get_all or eda_pcb_primitive_line_get_all_primitive_id. The singular signature implies single-object lookup, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context is provided.

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