eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-style getter operation returning an array of IDs, which implies no mutation, but it does not disclose scope (current document vs active window), filter semantics, or any edge cases such as no matching primitives. The signature and return type provide basic but not rich behavioral context.

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 call signature, followed by a brief Chinese purpose statement. The 'returns' line is slightly redundant with the signature's return type, but overall every element is useful 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 ID-listing function this is minimally adequate: it gives the method signature, return type, and optional filters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks clarity on how filters combine, what window/document scope applies, and how to interpret the args wrapper relative to the named signature.

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 schema describes only the wrapper fields (args, windowId), while the actual parameters net, layer, and primitiveLock appear only in the description with names and types. This adds some value beyond the schema, but no explanation is given for what 'primitiveLock' controls or what layer values are valid, so the semantics remain partially opaque.

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 specific verb and resource: getting all polyline primitive IDs, with a clear return type of string array. It does not explicitly differentiate from eda_pcb_primitive_polyline_get_all, which may return full primitive objects, but the name and '图元 ID' wording make the ID-only scope reasonably clear.

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 shows optional filter parameters (net, layer, primitiveLock) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_all, get, or the equivalent pour/region/via tools. An agent must infer usage from the name and signature alone.

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