Retrieves all rectangle primitives from the schematic in the active EDA window. Returns an array of rectangle objects for inspection or further processing.
sch_PrimitiveRectangle.getAll() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有矩形 returns: 矩形图元对象数组
| 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 behavioral burden; it usefully signals that the call is asynchronous (Promise), returns an array, and is a read/get operation. However, it does not state scope (current window/sheet/project), empty-array behavior, or any side-effect/error characteristics, leaving some behavioral unknowns.
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 definition is short and front-loads the API signature, but the Chinese sentence and the 'returns' line partly restate the same information. It is efficiently sized, with only minor bilingual redundancy.
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 read-only getter this is nearly adequate: it names the return type and has full schema parameter descriptions. It lacks an explicit statement of the retrieval scope (e.g., active document/current schematic) and return item structure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 descriptions cover the two generic params (args and windowId) fully at the wrapper level, so the baseline applies. The description adds no domain-specific parameter detail, and notably does not clarify that getAll() takes no positional args despite the generic '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 names a specific resource (schematic rectangle primitives), the operation (get all), and the return product (array of ISCH_PrimitiveRectangle). It is clear on its face though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as rectangle_get_all_primitive_id or primitive_object_get_all.
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 choose this over sibling primitives' get_all tools, the ID-only variant, or generic primitive_object_get_all. There is no mention of applicable document/window context. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.