eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully state the return type and that `undefined` means retrieval failed, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how invalid or missing IDs behave beyond returning undefined, or which window/document context applies.

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 method signature, followed by a minimal Chinese summary and return semantics. It contains no filler, though the signature and the '获取矩形' line are slightly redundant.

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 description covers the essential input, return type, and failure signal, but it omits parameter format, usage context, and details of the returned rectangle object. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would likely need additional information to invoke this correctly in non-trivial scenarios.

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's `args` property is a generic JSON array with no per-item description, so the description adds value by naming `primitiveIds: string`. However, it does not clarify whether `primitiveIds` accepts a single ID, comma-separated IDs, or an array, nor does it explain how the parameter should be ordered inside the `args` array.

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 and resource: '获取矩形' (get rectangle) and the API signature `sch_PrimitiveRectangle.get(primitiveIds: string)`, so an agent knows this fetches a rectangle primitive by ID. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like `eda_sch_primitive_rectangle_get_all` or `eda_sch_primitive_object_get`, but the name and 'get' phrasing make the core purpose clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_all`, `get_all_primitive_id`, or `object_get`. There is no mention of prerequisites, target document, or the relationship to other rectangle primitive tools.

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