eda_sch_primitive_wire_get_all

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the function returns a Promise of an array of `ISCH_PrimitiveWire` objects)Skip this is essentially a read-only retrieval operation implied by 'getAll', but it does not explicitly mention idempotency, potential side effects, or what happens if no wires exist. The description is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth beyond the return type.

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 compact: a signature line, a one-sentence Chinese description, and a return type note. No filler or redundancy. The essential information is front-loaded in the signature, making it easy to scan and process.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description only states the return type (array of wire primitives) without detailing the object structure or any examples. It also does not explicitly state which document or window it operates on beyond the optional `windowId` parameter described in the schema. For a simple get-all function, this is reasonable but not comprehensive – an agent might need to know what properties `ISCH_PrimitiveWire` contains to use the result effectively.

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 both `args` and `windowId`, providing 100% coverage. The description adds value by exposing the TypeScript signature `net?: string | Array<string>`, clarifying that the first argument is a net filter and its type. This is not apparent from the generic `args` array schema, so the description meaningfully enhances parameter understanding.

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 action as '获取所有导线' (get all wires) and the function signature `sch_PrimitiveWire.getAll(net?)` specifies the resource and operation. This is specific and immediately distinguishes it from related tools like `eda_sch_primitive_wire_get` (single wire) and `eda_sch_primitive_wire_get_all_primitive_id` (IDs only). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or the fact that `eda_sch_primitive_wire_get` should be used for a single wire. The only implied usage is via the function signature showing an optional `net` filter, but no concrete scenario or 'when not to use' is provided.

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