eda_pcb_primitive_poured_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets all primitive IDs, but does not explicitly say it is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active PCB document, or any other behavioral context. No side effects or constraints are mentioned.

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 extremely short and essentially restates the function signature in prose. It provides no additional structure or context beyond a one-line Chinese translation and the return type. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, as it omits important usage and behavioral details.

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, the description might seem sufficient, but it lacks clarification on when to use this tool versus the sibling pour getter, and does not describe the return format beyond the signature's 'Array<string>'. It also does not mention any prerequisites like an open PCB document or whether the list is scoped to a window. This is incomplete for an agent that must decide and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (args array and windowId) having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 '获取所有覆铜填充的图元 ID' (get all copper pour fill primitive IDs), which is a specific verb (get) and resource (copper pour fill primitives). The tool name reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling eda_pcb_primitive_pour_get_all_primitive_id, though the term 'poured' vs 'pour' implies a distinct primitive type.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when this is appropriate (e.g., when working with poured copper fills) or when to use a different getter. The description does not even note that it returns only IDs, not full objects, which is a common use-case distinction.

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