eda_pcb_primitive_via_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that this is a get operation returning a Promise of string IDs and reveals the optional parameters in the signature, but it does not explain what net or primitiveLock actually do or whether locked primitives are included.

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: the signature appears first, followed by a one-line purpose and a one-line return type. No unnecessary prose is present, though the signature and Chinese text partially duplicate each other.

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 read-only getter this is minimally viable: the return type is disclosed and the operation is clearly non-destructive. The main gaps are the semantics of the two optional parameters and the absence of any distinction from other primitive-type ID getters.

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 treats arguments as a generic JSON array, so the description's signature adds the parameter names, types, order, and optionality. However, it does not explain the meaning of net or primitiveLock beyond their names, leaving partial semantic coverage.

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 names a specific resource (过孔/via primitives) and a specific action (获取所有...ID/getAllPrimitiveId), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling get_all_primitive_id tools for other primitive types. The Chinese one-liner and the method signature reinforce the same precise meaning.

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 instead of nearby alternatives such as eda_pcb_primitive_via_get, eda_pcb_primitive_via_get_all, or other get_all_primitive_id tools. The intended context is only implied by the name and return type, not explicitly stated.

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