dwg_tools_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it inspects PATH and returns resolved binary paths when present. It implies a read-only diagnostic but never explicitly states it has no side effects or whether a missing binary is an error versus an empty result.

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 waste; the core assertion comes first and the downstream consequence follows immediately.

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 parameterless diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, why it matters, and what is returned when successful. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no schema semantics to add to. Baseline of 4 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 (Report whether) and resource (LibreDWG dwg2dxf/dxf2dwg binaries on PATH), and names the exact siblings it serves (import_dwg / export_dwg). An agent can distinguish it from the other status tools (geometry_backend_status, autocad_status) without opening the schema.

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?

The phrase 'so import_dwg / export_dwg can actually convert' tells the agent the condition under which this check matters, effectively routing it before DWG import/export. It does not, however, explicitly say 'call this before import_dwg' or state when to skip it.

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