dxf_read_attributes

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: no AutoCAD dependency required and a hard refusal above 2000 blocks with the mitigation ('restrinja o filtro'). That limit disclosure is exactly the kind of extra context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded purpose, then grouped WHEN-TO-USE, parameters, and a runnable example — scannable structure with little waste. The parameter line is slightly terse relative to the example, but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the guard-rail (2000-block cap) plus the usage scenario. The only shortfall is thin coverage of layer_filter semantics.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It names all three parameters and gives a wildcard example for block_filter ('SUP-*'), but layer_filter gets no explanation and accepted filter syntax/value forms are only implied by one example.

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 ('Lê os atributos de blocos ... direto do DXF') and adds the useful differentiator 'sem AutoCAD'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling read_block_attributes (or dxf_get_entity), which a scanning agent would want resolved.

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?

A dedicated 'QUANDO USAR' block gives concrete scenarios (extract the support registry from an exported DXF, prepare offline spreadsheet/audit). It provides clear context but names no alternative tool, so the choice against read_block_attributes is left to inference.

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