List Entity Properties

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that coordinates are WCS, extrusion is reported, and the payload is the raw attribute set entity_get omits. This lets an agent correctly interpret the coordinate frame without having to guess from the output schema.

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?

The first sentence establishes the tool in a few words. The second sentence adds two useful behavioral facts, WCS and extrusion, plus the relationship to entity_get, so every sentence earns its place.

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 only one required parameter, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the important behavioral caveats. Nothing an agent needs 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?

The input schema already gives handle a full description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no new meaning about handle beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline 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+resource: dump/returns the full DXF attribute set for one handle, framed as AutoCAD's LIST. It also distinguishes this from entity_get by noting entity_get deliberately does not carry dxf_attributes.

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?

It names the obvious alternative, entity_get, and gives the selection condition: use this when you need the raw attribute set that entity_get omits. It does not enumerate when not to use this, but the one clear sibling contrast is enough.

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