eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the return is a pad primitive object and that 'undefined' indicates failure, which is useful. However, it does not describe error behavior, side effects, permissions, or whether invalid IDs throw or just return undefined.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the method signature, followed by a compact Chinese summary and return semantics. There is no filler, though the signature line largely duplicates the tool name and could have been replaced with a more useful explanation of the ID format.

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 annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It leaves critical gaps: how to format primitiveIds, whether the tool accepts one or many IDs, what the returned object contains, and how failures beyond 'undefined' are handled. An agent would need to inspect other tools or external documentation to use it confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's signature line mentions 'primitiveIds: string' but adds no semantic information about the expected format, whether multiple IDs are allowed separated by commas, or how the string relates to the args array. The schema's 'args' description is generic, so the description does not meaningfully compensate.

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 gives the exact method path 'pcb_PrimitivePad.get' and the Chinese phrase '获取焊盘' (get pad), clearly naming both the verb and the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getter tools like eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get_all or eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id, though the singular 'pad' and the tool name imply fetching one pad by 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_all or get_by_primitive_id. There is no mention of prerequisites, when windowId is needed, or how this differs from other getter tools, so an agent must guess from the name alone.

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