Retrieve all arc primitives from an EasyEDA Pro schematic window, returning an array of arc objects for analysis or further processing.
sch_PrimitiveArc.getAll() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有圆弧 returns: 圆弧图元对象数组
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (array of arc primitive objects) and the operation (getAll), implying a read-only side-effect-free behavior. However, it does not disclose details about windowId handling, whether it operates on the active document, or any failure modes.
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: an API signature line, a Chinese phrase meaning 'get all arcs', and a return type note. There is minor redundancy between the English signature and the Chinese return description, but no wasted words overall.
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?
While the tool is a simple getter, the description lacks context such as which document this applies to, whether windowId is needed, or what the structure of ISCH_PrimitiveArc is. No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return object structure beyond naming it.
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 describes both parameters (args and windowId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but since the schema already documents them, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool retrieves all arc primitives (获取所有圆弧) and returns an array of ISCH_PrimitiveArc objects. The verb/resource combination is specific, and the name aligns with the getter pattern. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_all tools, but the resource (arc) is unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sch_primitive_arc_get_all_primitive_id or other primitive getters. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.