Validate Drawing

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that the tool does not modify the drawing, and the description adds value by detailing what each check does. It does not disclose behavior when the checks parameter is omitted or whether all checks run by default, but the read-only safety profile is covered by the annotation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a scannable bullet list where each entry earns its place. It avoids restating the title or repeating schema information unnecessarily.

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 single optional parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main residual gap is the unspecified default behavior when the checks array is omitted.

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 schema already has 100% coverage by listing the check names, so the baseline is met. The description goes further by defining each allowed value semantically, which helps an agent choose the correct strings. It leaves the null/omitted behavior of the checks parameter unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Run quality checks') and resource ('the current drawing'), then enumerates the available check types with concrete meanings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like drawing_audit or drawing_preflight, but the named checks make its purpose identifiable.

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 bullet list provides implied usage: an agent can infer this tool is appropriate when empty_layers, zero_length, or duplicate_entities checks are needed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as drawing_audit or drawing_preflight.

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