eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the API signature and return type, implying a read operation without stating it, and says nothing about filtering behavior, performance, side effects, or which document/window scope the query applies to.

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. The return-type line is slightly redundant with the signature, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential signature and return type, which is reasonably complete. However, it lacks a plain-language explanation of what a 'binary embedded object' is, what the primitiveLock parameter controls, and how this tool relates to get_all_primitive_id, so an agent may hesitate about correct usage.

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 input schema only describes a generic args array and windowId, but the description adds the actual parameter names, types, and optional markers (layer?: TPCB_LayersOfObject, primitiveLock?: boolean). This is valuable beyond the schema, though the semantics of primitiveLock and the valid values for layer are left unexplained.

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 identifies the action ('获取所有' = get all) and the resource ('二进制内嵌对象' = binary embedded objects), with a TypeScript signature showing the exact API call. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely related sibling eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all_primitive_id or the type-specific get_all variants.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all_primitive_id or type-specific getAll tools. The context signals show a large sibling set, so explicit routing guidance would be valuable, but the description offers none.

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