sheet_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well by disclosing the coordinate system (image px at render scale 2.0, origin top-left, y down) and that the payload includes both px and pt dimensions. It also transparently notes the raster_traced fallback for scanned sheets, adding behavioral context beyond what a simple 'get info' would imply.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'Sheet detail:' followed by a dense list of attributes. The two additional sentences on coordinate space and payload dimensions are valuable and non-redundant; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has a simple single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the necessary context: what values are returned, what the coordinate system is, and how the vector/raster distinction affects downstream tools. It is complete for an information-retrieval tool.

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 input schema already documents the single 'sheet' parameter with 100% coverage, giving examples of sheet keys and title-block numbers. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 'Sheet detail:' and enumerates specific attributes (dims, vector segment count, linework type, scale status, shape count), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also references the sibling tool one_click, which distinguishes its role in diagnosing whether a sheet will flood or fall back to raster tracing.

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 explains that sheet_info reports whether vector linework is present, which is directly relevant to whether one_click will flood or use rendered pixels. This provides clear context for when to consult sheet_info before invoking one_click, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when...' or naming other alternatives.

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