Fetch all polygon primitive IDs from the active schematic window for targeted selection or modification.
sch_PrimitivePolygon.getAllPrimitiveId() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有多边形的图元 ID returns: 多边形的图元 ID 数组
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. The `get` wording and `Promise<Array<string>>` return type signal a read-only, async lookup, and the return shape is disclosed. However, it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, what scope 'all' refers to, or any empty/error behavior, so transparency is only partial.
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 method signature and purpose. However, the final `returns: 多边形的图元 ID 数组` line is redundant with the signature and the preceding sentence, so not every sentence earns its place.
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, the description gives the essential return type, and the schema documents the optional `windowId`. Still, it leaves the scope of 'all' ambiguous and does not state when the active-window default applies, making it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.
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 documents both parameters with high coverage: `args` is described as a JSON parameter array and `windowId` as the optional target window. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 the exact operation: retrieving all polygon primitive IDs, and it even includes the method signature with the return type. It is clearly about polygon primitive IDs rather than other primitive types, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent tools like `eda_sch_primitive_polygon_get_all` or `eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all_primitive_id`.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that `eda_sch_primitive_polygon_get_all` returns full polygon objects, or that sibling primitive-ID tools are the choice for other primitive types. Usage is only implied by the name and short description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.