pcb_get_primitives_by_id

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action and batch cardinality ('one or more'), and does not mention response size, filtering behavior, or document/instance targeting.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and retrieval key directly.

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 schema is rich and fully described, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the terse description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool. It does not explain return shape, but the tool name and 'Get ... primitives' phrasing make the retrieval outcome reasonably clear, and no output schema is provided.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including type, primitiveIds, document, limit, fields, filter, and instance_id. The description only references type and primitive ID(s) at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PCB primitives') and narrows scope to retrieval by type and primitive ID(s). It is clear enough to distinguish from retrieval-by-region or retrieval-at-point siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by their type and primitive ID(s)': the agent should use this when it already knows the primitive type and ID(s). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as pcb_get_all_primitives or pcb_get_primitives_in_region.

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