eda_pcb_primitive_line_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states it gets all lines and returns an array; it does not state that it is a read-only operation, does not explain the scope ('all' in the current document?), and does not mention potential errors or performance implications. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise: a one-line signature, a one-line Chinese description, and a one-line return type. No redundant information; every line earns its place.

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?

The description gives the return type and the general purpose, but lacks contextual details such as which document is queried, what 'all' refers to (current page, whole board?), any prerequisites, or edge cases. For a simple getter, this might be adequate, but it leaves the agent with questions.

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 includes the full signature with parameter names and types (net?: string, layer?: TPCB_LayersOfLine, primitiveLock?: boolean), providing meaning beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. However, it does not explain the semantics or allowed values of these parameters, so it is not fully complete.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves all straight line primitives ('获取所有直线') and provides the function signature 'pcb_PrimitiveLine.getAll' with return type. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_line_get (singular) and eda_pcb_primitive_line_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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of filtering behavior of optional parameters, nor any exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling names.

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