List Block Definitions

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the exclusion of system blocks and explaining that blocks are reusable symbol libraries. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior, then adding useful context and an important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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?

For a simple, read-only listing operation with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the key behavioral nuance (system blocks excluded), though it could be slightly richer by pointing to dxf_get_block_detail for deeper block inspection.

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 description coverage is 100%, with file_path fully documented as 'Absolute path to the .dxf file.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate; the schema carries the burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all named block definitions in the DXF file.' It further clarifies scope by excluding system blocks starting with '*', which makes the tool's purpose distinct from a hypothetical block-detail tool. The title reinforces the purpose without contradicting it.

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 description implies when to use it: when you need an overview of named blocks, especially reusable symbol libraries. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives such as dxf_get_block_detail for detailed block content, nor does it state when this tool should not be used. The context is clear but leaves routing to inference.

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