eda_sch_primitive_arc_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state it returns a Promise<Array<string>>, revealing async behavior and return type. However, it does not mention the windowId parameter's scope, whether results are limited to the active document, error conditions, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a getter with no annotation coverage.

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 includes a method signature, which helps. However, it repeats the same information twice: '获取所有圆弧的图元 ID' and 'returns: 圆弧的图元 ID 数组' are essentially identical. The Chinese and English lines are redundant. It is not verbose, but the repetition adds little value.

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 get-all-IDs function, the description states the action and return type, but it omits critical context: it does not mention the windowId parameter at all (though the schema covers it), does not explain whether IDs are scoped to a specific document, and provides no usage context or alternatives. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters. The windowId parameter has a specific description ('target EDA window ID; omit to use current active window'), and args is described generically as a JSON array. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate for the generic args description, which could confuse an agent about whether any arguments are needed.

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 it retrieves all primitive IDs of arcs ('获取所有圆弧的图元 ID') and returns an array of strings. The verb 'get' and resource 'all primitive IDs of arcs' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_arc_get_all (which returns full objects) by explicitly saying IDs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, hence 4.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sch_primitive_arc_get_all (full objects) or eda_sch_primitive_arc_get (single arc). The description does not mention that this is for retrieving only IDs, nor does it exclude other use cases. An agent must infer the appropriate scenario from the name alone.

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