system

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description includes operations 'init' (re-initialize backend) and 'execute_lisp' (execute arbitrary AutoLISP code) which are clearly mutating or potentially destructive. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation. The description also fails to disclose side effects or safety implications of these operations.

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 well-structured with a clear summary and a bulleted list of operations, each with a brief explanation. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of potentially dangerous operations warrants more cautionary wording.

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 lists operations but fails to explain return values, error handling, permissions, or the behavior of the 'include_screenshot' parameter. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of potentially destructive operations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use all features safely and 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 description adds meaning by listing valid values for the 'operation' parameter and specifying that 'execute_lisp' takes data with a 'code' field. However, it omits any discussion of the 'include_screenshot' parameter and does not clarify whether other operations use 'data', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as 'Server status and management' and enumerates specific operations (status, health, get_backend, runtime, init, execute_lisp), giving a clear idea of the resource and actions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the system focus is evident from the operation list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drawing, entity, or layer tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond listing operations, so agents must infer usage from operation names.

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