eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all_primitive_id

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

The description discloses the async return type and that the result is an array of primitive IDs, which is useful. With no annotations present, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it explain scoping or empty-array behavior, but the 'get' semantics imply a safe 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 compact and front-loaded with the call signature and return type. The Chinese summary and the 'returns' line are slightly redundant with each other, but the overall length is appropriate and contains no filler.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the return shape and function signature. However, it leaves gaps: what 'binary embedded object' means, whether the result is scoped to a specific window or schematic, and how this differs from eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all.

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 already covers the generic arguments, and the description adds the method signature `getAllPrimitiveId()`, indicating that no method-specific arguments are expected. This helps an agent know that `args` should be empty, which is meaningful beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 concrete retrieval verb and resource: it gets all primitive IDs of binary embedded objects, and the return type makes the intent clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all, instead relying on the '_id' suffix in the tool name.

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 instead of alternatives such as eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all, eda_sch_primitive_object_get, or the many other *_get_all_primitive_id tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.

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