sch_get_primitive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'with all properties' adds a small amount of context about the retrieval depth, but the description says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ID or about instance-switching side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('with all properties') sits at the end where it is easy to parse. It is perhaps a touch terse for a tool with three parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only getter whose parameters are fully documented in the schema and whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient; 'with all properties' partially compensates for the absent output schema by indicating the return payload. Only error/edge-case behavior is left implicit.

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%, with the document and instance_id parameters thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by its ID', 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a schematic primitive by its ID') plus a scope qualifier ('with all properties'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads like sch_get_primitive_type or sch_get_primitive_bbox because it returns the full object, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 on when to reach for this tool versus sch_get_primitive_type, sch_get_primitive_bbox, or the pcb_* variants. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid primitive ID or a target document.

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