eda_pcb_primitive_via_get_all

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves all vias and returns an array of IPCB_PrimitiveVia, which is clear for a read-style getter. It does not explain what 'net' or 'primitiveLock' filtering actually does, nor any side-effect/safety implications, but the operation itself is transparent enough for a retrieval call.

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 short, readable, and front-loads the method signature before the Chinese summary and return type. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the signature and the Chinese line repeat the same 'get all vias' idea.

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 low-complexity getter, the description covers the core operation, parameters, and return type. It lacks explicit filter semantics, windowId behavior, and error/edge-case details, but the schema and simple nature of the tool make the current level adequate with clear 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 input schema only documents 'args' as a JSON array in official signature order, so the method signature in the description adds useful parameter names, types, and optionality (net?: string, primitiveLock?: boolean). However, it does not explain the meaning or filtering behavior of these parameters, and windowId is only covered by the schema.

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 operation: it gets all vias ('获取所有过孔') and returns via primitive objects. The method signature and return type make the resource and behavior explicit. It does not explicitly contrast with the single-get or ID-only sibling variants, but the name and body are specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_via_get for a single via or eda_pcb_primitive_via_get_all_primitive_id for only IDs, and no condition is given for using the optional net or primitiveLock filters.

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