List Drawing Uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that results are paginated and include metadata, which is useful but not extensive. No mention of rate limits, authentication, or error handling.

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 concise with only a few sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by usage guidance, pagination details, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a list tool with 4 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains pagination and required parameters. It could mention default ordering or response fields, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the description does not need to add much. It mentions pagination parameters and required project_id, which are already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the input schema offers.

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 it returns a list of all Drawing Uploads in a specified project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_drawing_upload or list_drawings by specifying 'Drawing Uploads' and focusing on enumeration.

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 advises using this tool for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering via query parameters, providing clear context. It also notes the required project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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