eda_pcb_primitive_string_get_all_primitive_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, read-only status, or the meaning/effect of the layer and primitiveLock parameters. The only behavioral information is the return type, which is more output semantics than 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, with the signature and purpose in a few lines. It is front-loaded with the operation name and purpose. There is slight redundancy between the Chinese purpose line and the returns line, but overall it is efficient and free of fluff.

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?

The tool is simple and the return type is stated, but the description omits explanation of the optional parameters' semantics and does not clarify the relationship to the get_all variant. Given the large sibling family, a bit more context would help, but it is minimally adequate for calling the tool.

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, while the description's signature adds parameter names and types (layer?: TPCB_LayersOfImage, primitiveLock?: boolean). However, it does not explain what these parameters do or how they affect results, so it adds minimal meaning beyond the generic schema coverage, staying at the baseline.

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 '获取所有文本的图元 ID' (Get all text primitive IDs) and provides a signature returning Promise<Array<string>>, which specifies the verb (get), resource (all text/string primitives), and distinguishes it from sibling get_all_primitive_id tools for other primitive types. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_all_primitive_id tools or the alternative eda_pcb_primitive_string_get_all. The description only states the operation without any context, use cases, or exclusions, which is a notable gap given the large tool family.

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