eda_pcb_primitive_region_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the signature and return type; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether a specific window/document context is required, or what happens with missing optional parameters. Since it is a getter, some safety is implied, but behavior beyond the return type is underexplained.

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, front-loading the function signature and including the return type. It avoids unnecessary fluff. A minor deduction for bilingual redundancy (English signature and Chinese summary repeating the same info), but overall it 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 get-all tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return type (array of region primitive objects) and signature, which is a minimal viable amount. However, it does not mention the window context (though windowId is in the schema) or any caveats like empty results or performance. It is adequate but lacks depth for a new agent.

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 only provides a generic 'args' array and 'windowId' string. The description adds the actual function signature with parameter names and types (layer, ruleType, primitiveLock), which gives meaning to the generic args. However, it does not explain the semantics of each parameter (e.g., what layer filters), so it is partially helpful but not fully compensates.

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 tool retrieves all PCB primitive regions (获取所有区域) and returns an array of region primitive objects. The verb 'getAll' plus the resource 'region' makes the purpose clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_region_get (singular) and get_all_primitive_id (returns IDs only) by the explicit scope.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_all tools (e.g., for specific primitive types or get_all_primitive_id). It does not explain filtering scenarios or when the optional parameters are needed. The agent must infer usage from the signature alone.

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