eda_sch_primitive_get_primitives_bbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does disclose key behavior: the return type and that missing primitives or primitives without a BBox yield undefined. The getter-style signature makes read-only behavior inferable. It does not cover coordinate units or error behavior, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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: signature, Chinese summary, and return condition. Each line contributes useful information, and the essential signature is front-loaded. Slight redundancy exists between the English signature and the Chinese restatement, but it is not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so embedding the return type and the undefined condition is valuable and partially compensates. Still missing are coordinate-system/units context, how to obtain primitive IDs, and an explicit explanation of how windowId scopes the call, making the definition adequate but not fully complete.

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 args as a positional JSON array, so the embedded signature adds meaningful semantics by naming the actual parameter primitiveIds and its accepted types Array<string | ISCH_Primitive>. The windowId parameter is adequately described by the schema, making this above the baseline.

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 opens with a full API signature making it clear the tool computes a bounding box for schematic primitives via primitiveIds and returns minX/minY/maxX/maxY. It is unambiguous about the verb and resource, and the Chinese gloss reinforces the meaning. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_primitive_by_primitive_id, so it misses the top score.

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 related siblings such as eda_sch_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id, get_primitives_by_primitive_id, or the PCB equivalent eda_pcb_primitive_get_primitives_bbox. The description states only what the tool does, leaving selection context entirely implicit.

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