eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only retrieval operation and states the return type. However, it does not disclose scope (active document/window), behavior when no filters are supplied, or error/side-effect characteristics. For a getter, the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 API signature, giving immediate access to the operation and parameter shape. There is minor redundancy: the signature's Promise return type is repeated in the 'returns' line, but overall the description is efficient.

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 with no output schema, the description states the return type and the object being retrieved, which is minimally sufficient. Missing parameter semantics, explicit scope, and sibling differentiation leave it short of complete, especially given the large family of primitive get_all tools.

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 input schema only describes a generic args array and windowId, so the description adds real value by supplying the actual parameter names, order, types, and optionality: net, layer, primitiveLock. It does not explain the meaning of each parameter or how primitiveLock behaves, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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: getAll, and the resource: copper pour outline primitives (覆铜边框图元 / PrimitivePour). The verb+resource combination is specific, and the return type is stated. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_poured_get_all or the single-get variant eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get, so it is clear but not fully sibling-distinguishing.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The signature lists optional filters, but the description never explains when an agent should call this getter instead of a single-get or another primitive get_all tool. No explicit when/when-not/exclusion logic is provided.

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