eda_sch_primitive_text_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that `undefined` indicates failure and that the return is a `Promise<ISCH_PrimitiveText | undefined>`, making the async and failure semantics explicit. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is strictly read-only, whether it can throw, or what happens with invalid or nonexistent IDs.

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, with a signature line, a short Chinese purpose phrase, and a return semantic. There is minimal redundancy and the key return/failure information is included, though the bilingual formatting adds slight clutter.

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 return type and failure signal are stated, and no output schema exists to carry that information. But the description omits how the windowId/args interface works and gives no guidance on selecting this tool over closely related siblings, leaving the agent to resolve those gaps from the schema and context.

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 signature adds meaning by naming the argument `primitiveIds` and giving its type as `string`, which helps interpret the generic `args` array in the schema. However, it does not clarify how multiple IDs are represented or how `primitiveIds` maps into the `args` wrapper, and `windowId` is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is high, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the operation via the signature `sch_PrimitiveText.get(primitiveIds: string)` and the Chinese phrase "获取文本", identifying it as a getter for schematic text primitives. It is distinguishable from `eda_sch_primitive_text_get_all` by the singular/plural scope implied by the name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from generic getters like `eda_sch_primitive_get_primitive_by_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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `eda_sch_primitive_text_get_all` or `eda_sch_primitive_get_primitive_by_primitive_id`. The description does not state prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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