draw_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It warns about the non-obvious active-pane-only behavior and the misleading zero-count scenario, which are the key traps an agent could fall into. It does not describe the return format, but the core behavioral risks are transparently covered.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded in capital letters, and the caveat-plus-remedy structure delivers maximum useful information in minimal space.

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 tool, the description covers the essential contextual warnings and directs the agent to the correct sibling tools. It lacks only a brief note on what the returned list contains or its format, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already documents this with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, so the baseline of 4 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('shapes/drawings') and adds a precise scope restriction: 'ACTIVE PANE ONLY'. This differentiates the tool from sibling tools like draw_get_properties and from pane-level operations by making its exact domain clear.

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 explicitly tells the agent when the tool is insufficient: in a multi-pane layout, other panes are not included, and a count of 0 does not mean the chart is empty. It names the exact alternatives, pane_list and pane_focus, for broader inspection. This is clear, actionable routing guidance.

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