eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the return type is IPCB_PrimitivePour | undefined and that undefined indicates failure, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits other relevant behavior such as whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), potential error conditions beyond undefined, or any window/context requirements.

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 concise, with the signature front-loaded and a brief Chinese summary. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and gets to the point. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, though it still earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return object's structure, but it only mentions the type name and failure case. The parameter semantics are unclear, and there is no guidance on when to use this getter versus the get_all variant. For a tool that returns a complex primitive object, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without enough information to use it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage but only describes the generic args array and windowId generically. The description adds the method signature, which names the parameter primitiveIds as a string and shows its position. This provides some semantic value, but it does not explain the format of primitiveIds (e.g., a single ID vs. a comma-separated list) or how it relates to the return value, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 action (获取覆铜边框, get copper pour border) and includes the method signature with return type, making it clear this is a getter for a single pour primitive. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters like eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get_all, relying on the name and signature to imply single-object retrieval.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get_all or get_all_primitive_id. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid primitive ID, nor any exclusions. The description provides no context to help the agent choose between the many sibling getters.

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