list_drawings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral detail: paths are resolved relative to the configured root, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. It stops short of describing recursive behavior or what 'available' means, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a simple listing tool.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word adds meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema names.

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?

The tool is simple: two optional parameters, an output schema for return values, and no annotations. The description plus schema tells an agent what the tool does, what inputs it takes, and the root-relative path rule; the output schema covers return-value details. A small gap is that recursive behavior is only implied rather than stated, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 clarifies the directory parameter by stating that it is relative to the configured root, which is not in the schema, but it adds no meaning for the recursive boolean beyond what the name and default already imply. This partial compensation is adequate but not thorough.

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 names a concrete verb ('List') and resource ('DXF files') plus the scope ('under a directory, relative to the configured root'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_layers, which operate on layers within a drawing, so an agent can tell what the tool is for.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to enumerate DXF files in a directory, whereas siblings like list_layers and drawing_summary address different tasks. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how to choose among alternatives, so the routing is left to inference.

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