gaihen_respond

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: entities are injected once the .bat sees the file, delete_selected=true replaces the originally selected figures, notice posts a message into Jw_cad, and coordinates are real mm relative to the job's layer group scales. It omits failure modes, timing/async behavior, and what happens if both entities and drawing are supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then mode selection, then the destructive flag and coordinate convention. Information density is high and there is little wasted text, though the '.bat' reference is opaque shorthand.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core write path but leaves job_id, exchange, error behavior, and any return confirmation unaddressed, so an agent cannot fully predict the call's effect.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains entities, drawing, delete_selected, and notice, and cross-references the drawing_add schema for entity shape. It says nothing about job_id (the sole required parameter) or the 'exchange' parameter, leaving two of six parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 opening 'Answer a job' plus the mechanics of entities being drawn into the Jw_cad drawing state a specific action and resource, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like gaihen_read, gaihen_status, and gaihen_jobs. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('as soon as the .bat sees the file') and never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 does specify the two mutually exclusive input modes ('Give either entities ... or drawing=<name>'), which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of saying when this tool is the right one versus gaihen_cancel, gaihen_prepare_import, or gaihen_status, so overall guidance is implied rather than complete.

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