Fetch all polyline primitives from the PCB, optionally filtering by net, layer, or lock status.
pcb_PrimitivePolyline.getAll(net?: string, layer?: TPCB_LayersOfLine, primitiveLock?: boolean) -> Promise<Array> 获取所有折线 returns: 折线图元对象数组
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the function returns a Promise of an array, but does not disclose any side effects, performance implications, how filtering parameters (net, layer, primitiveLock) affect results, or any default behavior. This is a significant gap for a read operation that may have non-obvious behavior.
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 short and to the point, but it is incomplete. It front-loads the signature and then gives a one-line Chinese description plus a returns line. While concise, it omits critical parameter explanations and any context, making it minimally viable but not well-structured for an agent.
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?
Given the presence of three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool via the wrapper parameters (args, windowId), what net/layer filtering does, or what primitiveLock entails. An agent cannot confidently use this tool correctly without additional information.
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 description includes the signature with parameters net, layer, and primitiveLock, but does not explain what they mean. The input schema only describes the generic 'args' array and 'windowId' wrapper, leaving the actual parameter semantics unexplained in both the description and the schema. Schema coverage is 100% for the wrapper, but the description adds no value for the functional parameters.
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 the function clearly: '获取所有折线' (get all polylines) and specifies the return type as an array of polyline primitive objects. This makes the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling 'eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_get' (which gets a single polyline), relying on the tool name to convey the 'all' 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the singular 'get' or the 'get_all_primitive_id' variants. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to other tools. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and signature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.