Retrieves all text primitive IDs from the current schematic in EasyEDA Pro. Returns an array of text element identifiers for use in further design automation.
sch_PrimitiveText.getAllPrimitiveId() -> Promise<Array> 获取所有文本的图元 ID returns: 文本的图元 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Array<string>) and that it is a get operation, but does not mention side effects (none expected), required window context, error behavior, or whether it operates on the current schematic page. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 extremely concise—a single line plus a returns note. It is front-loaded with the method signature and return type. The bilingual content (Chinese/English) may slightly reduce clarity for some agents, but it remains efficient.
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 is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what is returned but does not explicitly mention scope (e.g., current schematic page) or that it returns all text primitives in the active document. This gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 describes both parameters (args and windowId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning for these parameters, and the method signature suggests no real parameters beyond the generic wrapper. Baseline 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 states a clear verb (get) and resource (all primitive IDs of text), and the tool name itself specifies the primitive type. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling get_all_primitive_id tools, but the name and description together leave no ambiguity about what it returns.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other get_all_primitive_id variants (arc, circle, pin, etc.). The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent to rely solely on the naming convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.