list_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the output contents (entity count, unsaved changes, read-only state) and that the active drawing is marked. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or note any potential side effects or performance considerations, although those are likely implied by the listing nature.

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 a single sentence that packs essential information: what is listed, the active drawing marking, and the included attributes. It is concise, though the grammar is slightly awkward ('Every drawing open in the CAD, marking...'), which slightly reduces clarity. Overall, no word is wasted.

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 low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It lists all open drawings and their status details, which is adequate for a simple listing tool. The only minor omission is whether the list includes the current drawing or only others, but this is a minor detail.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The one-sentence description does not confuse parameter usage.

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 name 'list_documents' and description 'Every drawing open in the CAD...' clearly indicate the tool lists all open drawings. It specifies the data shown (entity count, unsaved changes, read-only state) and marks the active document, distinguishing it from siblings like drawing_info or get_entity_counts. However, the phrasing lacks a direct verb like 'Lists', making the purpose slightly less explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drawing_info or list_entities. It implies an overview function but does not state explicit use cases, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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