scan_vector_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context: region_px limits the area, line properties are set via lg/ly/lc/lt, and tag enables later removal. But it omits whether the operation is destructive to existing drawing contents, permission requirements, or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted verbiage. It is tightly written, though the parameter explanations are compressed into a single clause that reduces clarity.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the scan must be calibrated or open), the effect on existing drawing entities, and the semantics of most parameters.

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 compensate. It explains region_px, lg/ly/lc/lt, and tag, but leaves scan_id, drawing, page, solid_ly, min_len_mm, and include_solids completely undocumented. The meaning of lg/ly/lc/lt is also only gestured at ('set ... for the imported lines') without explaining what each controls.

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?

States a specific verb ('import'), resource ('page's line work'), destination ('into a drawing as lines'), and unit conversion ('real mm'). It also clearly scopes the tool to vector PDFs exported from CAD, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_texts and scan_overlay.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition ('For vector PDFs (exported from CAD)'), which helps an agent choose this tool over raster-based or text-focused siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a concrete alternative for different PDF types.

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