Drawing Info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by using 'Get' and listing no side effects. It adds expected return data beyond the annotation, including extents and units, which tells the agent what to expect without calling. It does not mention performance or dependencies, but for a read-only info tool that is acceptable.

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 description is two sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The return list is compact and information-dense without prose. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers both what it does and what it returns. The 'current drawing' scope is explicitly stated. The only omission is explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the tool's simplicity makes that non-critical.

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?

There are no parameters, so the empty schema offers nothing to explain. The description clarifies that the scope is the 'current drawing,' an implicit contextual parameter not captured in the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description adds useful context for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'Get comprehensive metadata for the current drawing' with a specific verb and resource. The enumerated return fields (name, path, entity_count, etc.) remove ambiguity about what 'info' means. It clearly differentiates from sibling mutation/export tools by focusing on read-only drawing-level metadata.

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?

Provides clear context that this applies to the current drawing, not a specified file or entity. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope strongly implies use when the agent needs a summary of the active drawing's properties. Since no sibling tool overlaps exactly, the lack of explicit alternative routing is minor.

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