engineering_search_project_drawings

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

The description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or destructive potential, but it does not contradict the annotations (destructiveHint: true). It adds context about JWT, tenant, and company scope, but this is authorization context rather than behavioral detail, so transparency is limited.

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 succinct and well-structured. It contains two short sentences followed by a clear args list, with no redundant information or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and arguments, but it omits usage examples, prerequisites, and any mention of return values or error conditions. While the output schema exists separately, the description alone does not provide complete operational context.

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?

Both parameters are briefly explained: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. These descriptions are helpful but generic; they lack examples, expected formats, or constraints, so semantics are only moderately clear.

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 runs the 'search_project_drawings' engineering domain action, explicitly indicating a search over project drawings. The routing through the domain-agent dispatcher adds context without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools (e.g., search_documents, grep_documents). The description does not mention any specific conditions or scenarios that would make this tool preferable, leaving selection to inference.

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