eda_sch_primitive_pin_get_all

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a Promise of pin primitive objects but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what scope 'all pins' refers to (e.g., current schematic page vs. document), or how the optional windowId affects behavior. These are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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, with three short statements and no filler. The signature is front-loaded and the return type is clearly indicated, though the structure is slightly fragmented across separate lines.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the operational scope (which window/document the pins come from), has no guidance on alternatives, and does not describe the shape or properties of the returned ISCH_PrimitivePin objects beyond the type name.

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% for the two parameters (args and windowId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only shows an empty getAll() signature, which could slightly conflict with the existence of an args array but does not actively mislead.

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 action '获取所有引脚' (get all pins) and the return type is given in the signature and returns line. It identifies the specific resource (pin primitives) and distinguishes from sibling get_all tools by specifying the pin type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from eda_sch_primitive_pin_get.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_sch_primitive_pin_get for a single pin or eda_sch_primitive_pin_get_all_primitive_id for ID-only retrieval. The description gives no context for selection among related tools.

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