eda_sch_select_control_get_selected_primitives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose deprecation, which is valuable, but it does not explain what 'all parameters' means, whether it returns empty arrays when nothing is selected, or what the shape/scope of the result is. The redundant returns line adds no behavioral depth.

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 repeats the same information three times ('sch_SelectControl.getSelectedPrimitives() -> Promise<Array<object>>', '查询选中图元的所有参数', 'returns: 选中图元的所有参数') before reaching the deprecation note, which is the only unique content. The structure wastes space on tautological restatements.

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 no annotations, so the description should explain return semantics and deprecation alternatives. The deprecation marker is present, but the description remains incomplete for a read tool that an agent must choose among many selection-control siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters (args and windowId) already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it queries all parameters of selected primitives via sch_SelectControl.getSelectedPrimitives(), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like eda_sch_select_control_get_all_selected_primitives or eda_sch_select_control_get_selected_primitives_primitive_id, and the redundant Chinese lines add no distinguishing value.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_all_selected_primitives or get_selected_primitives_primitive_id. The '[已弃用]' (deprecated) marker is the only usage-relevant signal, and it is left to the agent to infer that it should be avoided in favor of alternatives.

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