draw_get_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and explicitly states 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' and the dependency on an entity ID from draw_list. It does not describe error behavior for invalid or missing IDs, but for a simple read getter this is a solid disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then neatly separated into WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS. Every sentence contributes useful information with 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 a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned, when to call it, its safety profile, and the prerequisite entity ID.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats that entity_id comes from draw_list but adds no additional syntax, validation, or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (styling properties, line colors, line width, coordinate points of an existing drawing shape), and ties it to an entity ID. It clearly distinguishes this inspection tool from sibling tools like draw_list, draw_shape, and draw_remove_one.

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 an explicit WHEN TO USE condition: inspecting or confirming coordinates of an annotated price level. It also states a prerequisite (entity ID from draw_list). It does not name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is clear enough.

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