dxf_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent ('sem alterar o arquivo'). Beyond the annotations it discloses the reporting behavior (flags errors and fixable items) and the fact that the check mirrors AutoCAD's own open-time validation, which is genuinely useful context about what the audit produces.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then a clearly labeled usage block, then parameter+example. Four short lines, no filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, trigger, and invocation. It is nearly complete; the only shortfall is that the single parameter is documented more thinly than the schema's 0% coverage warrants.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, and the description only labels it ('Parâmetros: path') and supplies an example (path="entrega.dxf"). The example implies a file path string, which is mildly helpful, but no constraints, format, or relative-vs-absolute guidance are given, so it only partially compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Audita a estrutura do DXF') and names the exact failure class it detects (erros que o AutoCAD acusaria ao abrir), which distinguishes it from diagnostic siblings like dxf_info or dxf_query. The non-modifying scope ('sem alterar o arquivo') further sharpens what the tool is.

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?

An explicit 'QUANDO USAR' block tells the agent the trigger situation (before publishing/delivering a DXF, whether generated or received). This is the clearest form of when-to-use guidance: a concrete workflow moment, not an implied context.

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