eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently shows a Promise<Array<string>> return and describes a read operation, implying a getter with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, scope (whole board vs current document), potential failures, or any side effects beyond the signature.

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: a signature line, a one-line Chinese purpose, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the signature and avoids excessive prose, though the 'returns' line largely restates the signature's return type, making it slightly redundant.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential callable signature and return type, which is likely enough to invoke it. However, it omits clarification of what '二进制内嵌对象' means, when this should be used over sibling primitive getters, and any behavior around the windowId/args wrapper, leaving an agent to infer important invocation context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% per the context signals, so the baseline is 3. The description does add the actual API signature with parameter names and types (layer?: TPCB_LayersOfObject, primitiveLock?: boolean), which is helpful because the schema only exposes a generic args array. However, it does not explain the meaning of layer or primitiveLock or enumerate valid TPCB_LayersOfObject values.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it gets all primitive IDs for PCB primitive objects via '获取所有二进制内嵌对象的图元 ID', and the signature confirms 'getAllPrimitiveId'. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling 'get_all_primitive_id' tools, so it is clear but not differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_object_get_all or the type-specific get_all_primitive_id siblings. There is no mention of when to call it instead of fetching full object data, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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