Retrieves a schematic circle primitive by its ID from the active EDA window. Returns the circle object or undefined if not found.
sch_PrimitiveCircle.get(primitiveIds: string) -> Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveCircle | undefined>
获取圆
returns: 圆图元对象，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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the return is a circle primitive object and that `undefined` means failure, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, window-context requirements, or why a fetch might fail, though the operation name strongly implies a non-mutating lookup.
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 signature, followed by a concise Chinese summary and return semantics. Minor duplication exists between the English return type and the Chinese 'returns' line, but overall it is compact and easy to scan.
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 this is mostly adequate: it gives the call signature, return type, and failure sentinel. It lacks an explanation of how `primitiveIds` should be supplied inside `args`, which window/document context applies, and how this tool differs from nearby primitive fetching tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 only describes the generic `args` array and optional `windowId`, while the description adds the actual signature `primitiveIds: string`. This is helpful but thin: it does not explain the expected format of `primitiveIds`, whether multiple IDs are allowed, or whether the argument is required. Schema coverage is nominally 100%, so the description only modestly enriches the parameters.
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 specific operation: get a circle primitive via `sch_PrimitiveCircle.get`, with a clear resource and return type. It is distinguishable from siblings primarily by the tool name and signature rather than an explicit statement, since it does not contrast itself with `eda_sch_primitive_circle_get_all` or the generic primitive-by-id tools.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `eda_sch_primitive_circle_get_all`, `eda_sch_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id`, or other circle operations. The description only says what the function does, not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.