eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return type and that `undefined` indicates failure, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe other behavioral details such as exceptions, permissions, or side effects. The disclosed information is minimal 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 and front-loaded with the official signature, followed by a short purpose statement and return semantics. There is no filler or redundant elaboration, though the content is quite bare overall.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with no output schema or annotations, and the description explains enough to make a basic call when the caller already has a primitive ID. However, it omits how to obtain IDs, when to prefer this over sibling getters, and any details about the `windowId` behavior beyond the schema. It is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.

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%, providing descriptions for `args` and `windowId`, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the official signature `pcb_PrimitivePolyline.get(primitiveIds: string)`, which identifies the meaningful argument, but it does not clarify the format of `primitiveIds` or explicitly map it into the `args` array. The plural name is also ambiguous given the singular return value.

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 operation: '获取折线' (get polyline) and gives the return type `IPCB_PrimitivePolyline | undefined`. It is specific about the resource (polyline primitive) and the verb (get), but it does not contrast with sibling tools like `eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_get_all` or `eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_get_all_primitive_id`, so it misses some differentiation.

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. It does not mention that `get_all` should be used to retrieve all polylines, that `get_all_primitive_id` can be used to obtain IDs first, or how to obtain a valid `primitiveIds` value. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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