drawing

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

The description discloses each operation's high-level behavior but lacks deeper context about side effects or safety. For example, 'purge' implies deletion but doesn't state it removes unused objects permanently. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries some burden but adds limited behavioral detail beyond the operation list.

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 a well-structured, compact list. Each operation is summarized in a single line with no redundancy. The opening 'Drawing file management' provides immediate context, and the list format makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers all operations and their data inputs, which is comprehensive for a dispatcher tool. It omits include_screenshot and does not explain return values, but an output schema exists, so return behavior need not be described. Given the multi-operation complexity, this strikes a good balance.

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 0%, but the description compensates by specifying the data shape for each operation (e.g., data:{name?}, data:{path}). However, it does not describe the include_screenshot parameter, which remains undocumented. The operation field itself is unconstrained in the schema, so the description is essential and mostly fulfills that need.

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 opens with 'Drawing file management' and enumerates ten distinct operations (create, open, info, save, save_as_dxf, plot_pdf, purge, get_variables, undo, redo). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a dispatcher for drawing file operations and distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity, layer, and block.

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 the tool through its operation list, and provides specific guidance for save ('saves to path if given, else QSAVE') and create ('new empty drawing'). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the operation list serves as clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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