list_block_definitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: count_instances is slower because it scans model-space references, and attribute tags are only read for the requested page. That pagination/perf disclosure is real value beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address permission or empty-result behavior.

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 labeled QUANDO USAR block, then a compact parameter list, then a callable example. Every sentence earns its place and the scoping critical for correct invocation (pagination affecting tag reads) is surfaced early enough to matter.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies the usage precondition, the parameter semantics, perf caveats, and an example. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it defines name_filter syntax (* and ? wildcards with an example), explains count_instances and the limit/offset pagination interplay. include_xrefs is merely named with no meaning attached, so one of five parameters remains opaque.

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 and resource plus the exact payload returned: the drawing's block definitions and the attribute TAGS of each. This distinguishes it from read_block_attributes (which acts on instances) and from dxf_define_block (which creates definitions). An agent knows what it gets 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 QUANDO USAR section names a concrete precondition (before insert_block, to learn valid names/tags) and a companion workflow (building spreadsheets). It routes the agent relative to a sibling but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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