eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get_all_primitive_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb '获取/get' and return type imply a read-only query, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what scope it operates on, or how filters affect results. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, with the API signature front-loaded followed by a short Chinese purpose and return note. Every line earns its place and there is no filler.

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, the signature and return-type note are adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema there are notable gaps: no explanation of filter meanings, no statement about operation scope beyond the schema's `windowId`, and no guidance on alternatives. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 generic input schema only exposes `args` and `windowId`, so the description's signature adds real value by naming all four actual parameters with types and optional markers: `layer`, `net`, `primitiveLock`, and `padType`. It still does not explain the semantics of `primitiveLock` or `padType`, but it goes beyond 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 and resource: it calls `pcb_PrimitivePad.getAllPrimitiveId` to get all pad primitive IDs, and the return type `Promise<Array<string>>` reinforces this. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling `eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get_all`, though the name itself signals the distinction.

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_pad_get_all` or `eda_pcb_primitive_pad_get`. The description is only a signature and return note, with no scenario, prerequisite, or exclusion information.

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