eda_pcb_primitive_line_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a Promise<Array<string>> is returned but does not explain the scope of 'all lines', how optional filters behave, whether locked/hidden primitives are included, or any side effects. The '折线' vs 'line' wording also introduces ambiguity.

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 informative: signature, one-line purpose, and return type. It is front-loaded with the call signature and avoids unnecessary filler, though the 'returns' line partially repeats the signature's return type.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks parameter semantics, filtering behavior, and any guidance on selecting this tool among the many primitive-ID siblings. The line/polyline terminology inconsistency further reduces completeness.

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 official signature with parameter names and types (net?, layer?, primitiveLock?), which is valuable because the schema only provides a generic args array. However, it does not explain the meaning or expected behavior of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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 action: retrieve all line primitive IDs ('获取所有直线的图元 ID') and includes the return type Promise<Array<string>>. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_all_primitive_id tools, and the Chinese return note uses '折线' (polyline), which could blur the boundary with the polyline primitive tools.

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 eda_pcb_primitive_line_get_all or the get_all_primitive_id variants for other primitive types. The optional parameters imply filtering use cases, but no conditions or exclusions are described.

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