catia_drawing_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What earns credit is the rich disclosure of what is returned (view geometry, dimension values), which, with no output schema, gives the agent real behavioral context about the read operation.

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 dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the payload inventory following. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior when the drawing 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'drawing' name and its default to the active document. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 precise verb+resource ('read the drawing back') and enumerates the exact content returned: sheet format, scale, projection, views (kind, scale, centre, paper box, origin) and dimensions (type, value). This inventory distinguishes it from siblings like catia_drawing_check (validation) and drawing_extract_geometry without needing to name them.

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 the verb and the read-only nature, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the nearby alternatives (catia_drawing_check, drawing_extract_geometry, drawing_render) or the conditions that select this tool over them.

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