system

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description explicitly describes state-changing behavior: init re-initializes the backend, execute_lisp runs arbitrary AutoLISP code, and batch can create entities. These operations contradict the read-only annotation; the safety rules do not resolve the inconsistency.

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 structured as a scannable operation list with compact one-line entries and a concrete batch example. It is appropriately sized for seven operations, with only minor redundancy between the status and health descriptions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But the readOnlyHint contradiction leaves an incorrect safety model, include_screenshot is undocumented, and the effects of init are only vaguely stated for a tool that can execute arbitrary code and mutate drawings.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It lists the allowed operation values and documents data shapes for execute_lisp and batch, including cho_phep_xoa, but never explains the include_screenshot parameter and leaves data unspecified for several operations.

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 the resource (server) and enumerates seven specific operations with distinct verbs such as status, health, init, execute_lisp, and batch. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by domain (system/server management versus drawing, entity, layer, etc.), though the umbrella term 'management' remains broad.

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?

It gives operation-level guidance and explicitly says batch is for bulk drawing and faster than one call per entity, plus safety rules for erase/delete/purge. However, it does not state when to choose system over sibling tools or when not to use init/execute_lisp beyond the HP safety gate.

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