eda_sch_primitive_component_get_all_primitive_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it returns an array of primitive ID strings and does not mention side effects, whether it is read-only, performance implications, or how the allSchematicPages parameter affects scope. The lack of any behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool 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 brief and includes a signature, a Chinese purpose line, and a return type line. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks a clear front-loaded summary in a single language and mixes English and Chinese. The structure is acceptable but could be more organized and purposeful.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the scope of the query (current page vs all pages), the meaning of the optional parameters, and confirm it is a read-only operation. The current description only states the return type, which is insufficient for an agent to call it confidently in different contexts.

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 includes the signature with parameter names and types (componentType?: ESCH_PrimitiveComponentType, allSchematicPages?: boolean) but does not explain their meaning or behavior. The input schema only provides generic 'args' and 'windowId' fields, so the description is the sole source for parameter understanding. It fails to clarify what componentType filters or what allSchematicPages does, leaving the agent guessing.

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 clear purpose: '获取所有器件的图元 ID' (get all component primitive IDs), with a specific verb and resource. It also provides the function signature and return type, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like other get_all_primitive_id functions for different primitive types, relying on the tool name to convey that distinction.

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_component_get_all (which returns full objects) or other get_all_primitive_id variants. No context about scope (current page vs all pages) or typical use cases is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.