eda_sch_primitive_pin_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return type and that it returns an array of pin primitive IDs. It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, whether it depends on the active window or the provided windowId, or how it handles empty results. The name implies a getter, but the description itself does not disclose side-effect-free behavior or any limitations.

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 very brief, consisting of the function signature and a single line of Chinese explanation. It is not verbose and wastes no words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, but for a simple getter it is acceptable. The structure is linear and front-loaded with the signature.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify that the args parameter should be an empty array, does not mention that it operates on the current schematic or the window specified by windowId, and does not state whether the returned IDs are strings (though the signature indicates Array<string>). It also omits any error handling or edge-case behavior. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.

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 schema describes generic 'args' and 'windowId' parameters but does not explain what arguments this specific function expects. The description shows a function signature with empty parentheses, implying no arguments, but it does not explicitly state that the args array should be empty. It also does not explain how windowId relates to the function's operation. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's generic parameter 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 explicitly states the verb (获取 = get) and resource (所有引脚的图元 ID = all primitive IDs of pins), making it clear this tool retrieves primitive IDs for pin primitives. It also shows the function signature and return type (Promise<Array<string>>). The name and description together unambiguously distinguish this from sibling get_all_primitive_id tools for other primitive types (arc, bus, circle, etc.).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also fetch primitive IDs for other primitive types. It does not mention any prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions. An agent has no information about when this tool is appropriate over alternatives.

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