Fetch a specific arc primitive from an EasyEDA Pro schematic by its ID. Returns the arc object or undefined if retrieval fails.
sch_PrimitiveArc.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveArc | undefined>
获取圆弧
returns: 圆弧图元对象，undefined 表示获取失败
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return type and that undefined indicates failure, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects (expected none for a get), any permission requirements, or what happens if the primitive does not exist. The disclosure is minimal.
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 extremely short (a signature and a few Chinese phrases), which is concise but lacks structure. It doesn't front-load key information like parameters or return behavior in a clear way. It's under-specified rather than efficiently written.
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?
No output schema is present, so the description should explain the return value in detail. It mentions the type and undefined, but doesn't describe the ISCH_PrimitiveArc object structure. It also fails to explain what primitiveIds means or how to obtain it. For a simple get tool, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without further investigation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both args and windowId, so the schema already explains them. The description adds only the signature line showing primitiveIds as the first parameter, but it doesn't elaborate on its format or purpose beyond the name. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 states the tool gets an arc primitive ('获取圆弧'), which is a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_arc_get_all or eda_sch_primitive_arc_get_all_primitive_id. The name implies a single get, but no explicit distinction is made.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions, when to use get_all instead, or any selection criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and signature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.