List Drawing Tiles

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

Annotations already disclose read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds concrete failure modes (401/403/404), default project_id behavior via config, and return format ('single JSON object'). It also references the API endpoint, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence carries useful information. It is slightly longer than necessary (e.g., repeats read-only status, includes endpoint), but remains focused and readable.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, error handling, and return format. Without an output schema, it specifies that a single JSON object is returned, though there is minor ambiguity between 'list' semantics and 'single object.' Overall, it is complete for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds semantics that project_id may default from config and that drawing_revision_id must reference an existing parent record, enhancing the meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Lists the Drawing Tiles in the specified Drawing Revision along with the maximum Zoom Level and Tile Size,' clearly identifying the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the tile resource and the fields returned.

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?

Provides explicit usage context ('Use this when you already know which drawing tile you want and need its full field set') and instructs resolving the parent drawing_revision_id with the matching list tool first. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the guidance is clear.

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