jww_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that coordinates are in real millimeters and that results are paginated, but omits whether the operation is read-only, permission needs, and default limit/offset values that affect result volume. More disclosure is warranted for a query tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight paragraph, front-loaded with verb and resource, then filters, then pagination. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 an 8-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers filtering well but leaves the return shape, default pagination values, and read-only nature unstated. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to call it confidently.

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, and it largely does: it names the valid type values (line, circle, arc, text, point, solid, dimfigure), explains lg/ly as layer group/layer, gives the bbox ordering [min_x,min_y,max_x,max_y], and identifies pattern as a regex on text. Only path and the limit/offset defaults are left implicit.

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 a specific verb (query) and resource (entities of a .jww file), with the scope qualifier 'real-mm coordinates'. An agent can distinguish this as an entity-extraction tool from siblings like jww_info, jww_texts, or jww_preview, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the enumerated filter options (types, lg, ly, bbox, pattern), which tells the agent what can be narrowed but not when to prefer this over jww_info, jww_entities, or jww_texts. No when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives are given.

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