Generate summary PDF files for multiple drawings and save them to a specified output directory. Batch process drawings to create consolidated PDFs for review or distribution.
Generate summary PDF files for one or more drawings and write them into an output directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output_dir | Yes | ||
| drawing_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says files are written to an output directory but not whether files are overwritten, how filenames are derived, whether the directory must pre-exist, what happens on partial failure, or what the return value reports. For a tool with filesystem side effects and zero structured safety metadata, this is a significant gap.
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 that names the action, the input, and the output destination with no filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that the missing details feel like omission rather than deliberate brevity.
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 batch operation with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core what/where but omits return semantics (file paths? status?), overwrite behavior, and failure handling. Adequate as a minimum-viable description, not complete for a filesystem-writing batch tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey that drawing_ids accepts one or more drawing identifiers and that output_dir is a target directory path, which maps both required parameters to meaning. However, it adds no format detail (id syntax, path form, filename collision behavior) beyond that.
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 (generate, batch) and resource (summary PDF files for drawings), plus the destination side-effect (write into an output directory). It clearly distinguishes itself from the singular generate_pdf and from batch_generate_svg by naming the plural drawing input and PDF output. It stops short of explaining what a 'summary PDF' contains, which keeps it from a 5.
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 prefer this over generate_pdf (single drawing) or batch_generate_svg, despite both being siblings in the same tool list. The 'one or more' phrasing hints at batching but the agent gets no explicit rule for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.