eda_sch_primitive_wire_get_all_primitive_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the return type (array of strings) but does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation or that no modifications occur. The signature suggests a getter, but the description offers no details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to confidently understand its behavior beyond the basic return.

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 short but mixes a code signature with Chinese text in a way that is not optimally structured. It front-loads the signature rather than a clear purpose statement. While it is not overly verbose, the structure could be improved by leading with the action and purpose, then detailing the optional filter. The conciseness is acceptable, but the organization detracts from readability.

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 description includes the return type ('导线的图元 ID 数组') sufficient for a simple getter, but lacks examples, error handling, or context on when this is appropriate. It does not clarify the meaning of the IDs or how they might be used downstream. Given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of the return declaration, the description is minimally complete but could benefit from more context on usage or prerequisites.

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 input schema defines an `args` array (with empty item schema) and `windowId`, and the description notes 100% schema coverage. The description's signature includes an optional `net` parameter, but it does not explain how this maps to the `args` array or provide any constraints or format. Since the schema already documents the parameters generically, the description adds marginal value and does not fully clarify parameter semantics, especially the mapping from `net` to `args`. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage but limited added clarity.

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 purpose: '获取所有导线的图元 ID' (get all primitive IDs of wires). It identifies the resource (wires) and the action (get all IDs), and the function name reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eda_sch_primitive_polyline_get_all_primitive_id, though the resource type is distinct. A score of 4 reflects good clarity with minor lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention that it is specifically for wire primitives or that other primitive types have separate tools. The description simply states the function signature and return, without contextualizing when to invoke it or what distinguishes it from similar getters. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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