eda_pcb_primitive_object_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape and that undefined indicates failure, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can throw, or what side effects or prerequisites exist, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 short and front-loaded with the signature, followed by a concise Chinese summary and return explanation. There is minor redundancy between the signature and the prose return line, but overall every part is compact and quick to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, a generic args array, and a huge sibling family, the description is too thin. It fails to explain how to construct primitiveIds, what an 'object' primitive is, how windowId selection works, or how this differs from the many related get tools. An agent could not reliably invoke it correctly without external documentation.

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's args array is generic, but the description's signature adds the parameter name 'primitiveIds' and its string type. This is helpful yet incomplete: it does not explain the expected string format (single ID, comma-separated, JSON array), how IDs relate to the windowId parameter, or the meaning of the optional windowId in the schema.

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 verb 'get' and the resource '二进制内嵌对象' (binary embedded object), and the signature names the return type IPCB_PrimitiveObject. It is distinguishable from nearby get_all variants by the singular-get intent, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all or the generic primitive lookup 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all, eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all_primitive_id, or type-specific get tools. The description does not mention how to obtain valid primitiveIds, whether this tool is for a single ID or multiple, or which scenarios call for the get_all variants.

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