eda_sch_primitive_component_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The 'getAll' signature and '获取所有器件' summary make the read-only, list-returning nature clear. However, it does not disclose scope defaults, whether allSchematicPages is required for multi-page results, or possible errors/edge cases.

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-loaded with the official API signature, followed by a short Chinese summary and return type. It contains little wasted text, though a bit more structure or separation between signature, summary, and usage notes would improve scannability.

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 operation with no required parameters, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the target resource and return type. But with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context on the default scope (current schematic page vs. all pages), expected output shape beyond 'object array', and how to choose among the many related primitive-component tools.

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 description provides the parameter names and types in the signature, including componentType and allSchematicPages, and the input schema documents argument ordering via the args array. But neither the description nor the schema explains valid enum values for componentType or the exact effect of allSchematicPages, so semantics remain partially inferred.

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 operation: getting all schematic primitive components and returning them as an array of component objects. The tool name and signature reinforce this, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like component_get or component_get_all_primitive_id.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_sch_primitive_component_get, eda_sch_primitive_component_get_all_primitive_id, or eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or context that should trigger its use.

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