eda_pcb_select_control_get_all_selected_primitives

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses that this is a query returning a Promise<Array<IPCB_Primitive>>. It does not specify behavior for an empty selection or explicitly confirm that the operation is non-mutating, though the 'get'/'query' wording strongly implies it. This is a minimal but non-contradictory disclosure.

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 and front-loaded with the API signature, which is good for quick scanning. However, '查询所有已选中图元的图元对象' and 'returns: 所有已选中图元的图元对象' are essentially duplicated, so not every line earns its place. The redundancy is minor but prevents a higher score.

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 return type is stated, and the optional windowId parameter is described in the schema, so basic invocation is possible. The main gap is the lack of distinction from the near-identical sibling tools and no mention of what happens when nothing is selected. For such a simple getter this is serviceable but not complete.

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 already describes both args and windowId, giving a baseline of 3. The signature line 'getAllSelectedPrimitives()' adds a useful hint that no positional arguments are expected, which helps an agent construct the generic args array correctly. It does not elaborate on windowId, but that parameter is already 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 uses a concrete verb ('getAllSelectedPrimitives'/'查询') and clearly identifies the resource: all selected primitive objects. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the nearby sibling eda_pcb_select_control_get_selected_primitives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement is made about when to prefer this tool over related getters such as eda_pcb_select_control_get_selected_primitives or eda_pcb_select_control_get_all_selected_primitives_primitive_id. The description provides neither conditions nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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