eda_pcb_primitive_string_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add meaningful behavior: the return type is Promise<IPCB_PrimitiveString | undefined> and undefined indicates failure. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects or describe any other failure/error behavior.

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 function signature, followed by a concise summary and failure semantics. Every piece of text earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant explanatory prose.

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 and no annotations, the description provides the essential return contract and failure signal. However, it omits practical context such as how to obtain primitiveIds, whether the first item in args maps directly to primitiveIds, and what fields the returned object contains. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% at the wrapper level, but it only generically describes args as an array in official signature order. The description adds the actual signature with primitiveIds: string, which gives more meaning than the schema alone. Still, it does not explain the expected format, cardinality, or relationship between primitiveIds and the args array.

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 identifies a get operation for PCB text primitives: 'pcb_PrimitiveString.get(primitiveIds: string)' and '获取文本' (get text). The resource type is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling create/delete/modify/get_all operations, though it relies partly on the function signature rather than a plain-language statement.

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 the closely related siblings such as eda_pcb_primitive_string_get_all or eda_pcb_primitive_string_get_all_primitive_id. There is no mention of prerequisites, target document requirements, or conditions that would make this tool preferable.

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