eda_pcb_primitive_region_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and return type, but does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, permissions required, or what the returned IDs represent in detail. No caveats about layer or rule filtering behavior are given.

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, comprising a signature line, a one-sentence Chinese description, and a return type note. It avoids verbosity but is not well-structured; it is a compact block rather than logically sectioned. Still, it is efficient with no redundant words.

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?

Given the large set of sibling tools and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned primitive IDs refer to, how they relate to layers and rules, or how to invoke the tool correctly (e.g., how to pass parameters through the 'args' array). An agent would likely struggle to choose and call this tool properly without additional context.

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 description includes the full method signature with parameter names and types (layer, ruleType, primitiveLock), which adds information beyond the generic 'args' array in the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning, defaults, or allowed values of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer. The schema itself only describes wrapper fields (args, windowId), so the description provides the only parameter names but not semantics.

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 '获取所有区域的图元 ID' (get primitive IDs of all regions), which names the verb (get) and resource (region primitives). It is clear enough to know it retrieves IDs, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like eda_pcb_primitive_region_get_all, which likely returns full region objects. The ambiguity of whether it returns all region primitives' IDs or all primitive IDs within regions is not resolved.

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 such as eda_pcb_primitive_region_get_all or get_all_primitive_id tools for other primitive types. There is no mention of exclusions or context for selection.

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