eda_sch_primitive_bus_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that `undefined` means fetch failure and that the operation returns a Promise, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires a specific window context, or has any side effects.

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-loads the method signature before the brief Chinese summary. It is efficient, though '获取总线' adds little beyond the signature and tool name.

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 getter with no output schema, the description provides the return type and failure semantics, which is helpful. However, it lacks parameter format details and does not position the tool among its many sibling primitives getters, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding when to call 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 schema already describes the two wrapper parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the official signature parameter name and type, `primitiveIds: string`, but does not explain what the string should contain, how multiple IDs are formatted, or how `windowId` affects the lookup.

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 a get operation targeting the 'bus' resource and includes the method signature `sch_PrimitiveBus.get(primitiveIds: string)`, making it clear that the tool retrieves a bus primitive object. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like `eda_sch_primitive_bus_get_all`, but the singular return type and signature imply object-specific retrieval.

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 versus alternatives such as `eda_sch_primitive_bus_get_all` or other primitive getters. The only signal is the tool name and method signature, which is implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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