eda_sch_primitive_polygon_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does add useful behavior by stating `undefined` means fetch failure and that the result is a polygon primitive object, but it does not disclose error behavior, whether it operates on the current window, or any shape details of `ISCH_PrimitivePolygon`. The read-only nature is only implied by the word 'get'.

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 signature, followed by a short Chinese summary and return semantics. There is some redundancy between the signature's return type and the separate `returns:` line, but the text is still appropriately sized and contains no unnecessary 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, the signature and failure sentinel provide a minimally viable invocation contract. Yet with no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling guidance, the description leaves gaps around primitive ID format, return object contents, and when to select this tool over adjacent polygon getters.

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 description adds the actual parameter name and type (`primitiveIds: string`) that the generic `args` array in the schema does not expose, which is valuable. However, it does not explain what the string should contain, whether multiple IDs are allowed, or whether it is required, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of per-parameter detail.

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 clear verb/resource pair: it gets a schematic polygon primitive, and the signature `Promise<ISCH_PrimitivePolygon | undefined>` makes the target concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as `eda_sch_primitive_polygon_get_all` or generic getters like `eda_sch_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id`, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 versus alternatives, no mention of needing a primitive ID first, and no exclusion such as 'use get_all to retrieve multiple polygons.' The description is purely an API signature plus a one-line summary, so an agent cannot tell from this text which sibling is appropriate.

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