drawing_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals non-mutating behavior through 'Describe,' adds the performance trait 'cheap,' and positions the tool as a safe first step. It does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, but for a read-only summary tool the behavioral hints are strong.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does and what it returns; the second sentence delivers actionable usage guidance. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and an output schema that defines return values, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to call it, why it is the right first step, and how it relates to the other tools. Nothing important is missing.

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 provides only a 'path' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'this file' implies the path refers to a drawing file, adding slight semantic clarity. However, it does not elaborate on path format or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Describe one drawing') and identifies the exact information returned: DXF version, units, layer and block counts, and entity mix. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_drawings or list_layers, since it targets a single drawing and provides an overview.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first.' It explains why ('It is cheap') and what to do with the result ('it tells you which of the other tools is worth calling on this file'). This directly orients the agent toward the correct workflow among the sibling tools.

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