eda_sch_primitive_text_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a read operation returning a Promise<Array<ISCH_PrimitiveText>>, which adds value, but it does not specify scope (e.g., current document, page, or window), behavior when no text exists, or whether filtering is applied.

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 API signature and return type. There is minor redundancy between the signature, the Chinese one-liner, and the returns line, but no wasted sentences.

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 provides the essential return type and operation, but it omits usage context and scope details. Since there are no annotations or output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing whether this targets the active window/page and how it compares to sibling 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 schema already documents the generic args array and windowId, giving a baseline of 3. The description's signature `getAll()` adds meaning by indicating no positional arguments are needed, which helps disambiguate 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: "获取所有文本" (get all text) and clarifies the return type as an array of text primitive objects. It is clearly a bulk getter for schematic text primitives, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters such as get vs 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_sch_primitive_text_get, eda_sch_primitive_text_get_all_primitive_id, or eda_sch_primitive_object_get_all. The agent must infer usage 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.