eda_sch_primitive_pin_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type and that `undefined` indicates failure, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens when multiple IDs are passed, whether the result is a single object or an array, or any side effects (though likely a read operation). The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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 short and front-loaded with the signature and return type. The Chinese text adds a brief explanation of the return value. It is concise and to the point, though the mixed-language content and lack of formatting reduce clarity slightly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the `args` array, what the `primitiveIds` parameter expects, or how the return value is structured. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the schema only describes the generic `args` array and `windowId`; it does not document the `primitiveIds` parameter itself. The description mentions `primitiveIds: string` in the signature, which adds some meaning, but it doesn't explain the format (e.g., comma-separated, JSON array, single ID). The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter-specific documentation.

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 ('get') and resource ('sch_PrimitivePin'), and the return type is shown. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_pin_get_all and eda_sch_primitive_pin_get_all_primitive_id by the singular 'get' and the parameter name 'primitiveIds'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for retrieving a single pin primitive by ID, nor does it explain when to prefer eda_sch_primitive_pin_get_all or eda_sch_primitive_pin_get_all_primitive_id. The context is implied by the name and signature, but there is no explicit usage direction.

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