check_drawing

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does add real substance by enumerating the specific rules applied, including a concrete threshold ('text under 2.5 mm') and the feature types that must be dimensioned. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it needs an open drawing document, how findings are reported (list, severity, coordinates), or whether it modifies anything.

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 intent sentence is front-loaded and the checks are packed into one compact enumeration with no filler. It is somewhat list-heavy and would read better with an explicit leading verb, but every clause names a distinct check and 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is inspected but not what comes back — an issue list, a pass/fail verdict, per-item locations — nor the document precondition. The omission of return shape is the main gap, since no output schema exists to fill it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage. Baseline 4 applies — no parameter gaps exist to compensate for.

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 makes clear it reports drawing-sheet defects, and the enumerated categories (views outside the frame, overlapping texts, text under 2.5 mm, duplicate dimensions, undimensioned features) pin the resource down to a drawing sheet rather than a 3D model. It never uses a verb like 'checks' or 'returns', and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the check_* siblings (check_printability, check_interference, check_motion) — the drawing context does that implicitly.

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?

'to fix before sending the drawing out' implies a pre-export QA moment, which is a usable usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. an active drawing document must exist), and no reference to alternatives such as render_drawing or check_printability, so the agent must infer the routing.

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