Retrieve all circle primitive IDs from the active EDA schematic window for inspection or manipulation.
sch_PrimitiveCircle.getAllPrimitiveId() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有圆的图元 ID returns: 圆的图元 ID 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (Promise<Array<string>>) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires a specific window, or if it has any side effects. The minimal wording gives the agent little beyond the function name itself.
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 concise but structurally mixed, combining a code-style signature with Chinese prose. It is not overly verbose, but the layout is not front-loaded with the most useful information. The function signature line is redundant with the name, and the Chinese text repeats the same idea. It is adequate but not elegantly structured.
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, the description lacks essential context: it does not specify the scope of 'all' (current schematic page vs. entire document), whether it requires an active window, or what the returned IDs can be used for. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context to help the agent call it correctly.
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 descriptions cover both parameters (args and windowId) at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate. However, the description adds no value on top of the schema; it does not clarify the purpose of args or how windowId affects behavior. This aligns with the baseline 3 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 a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('圆的图元 ID' - circle primitive IDs), which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings that target other primitive types (arc, rectangle, etc.) by explicitly mentioning 'circle'. However, it lacks context about scope (current document vs. page), which is a minor gap.
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. It does not mention that this is for circle primitives only, nor does it contrast with other primitive type tools. The description provides no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.