List Entity Properties

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that coordinates are in WCS and that extrusion is reported, which is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations and adds value by explaining a subtle coordinate frame detail.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide essential clarifications. Every sentence adds information and no words are 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?

For a read-only single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's raison d'être, differentiates from entity_get, and clarifies coordinate behavior. There is no missing critical 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?

The input schema already covers the only parameter 'handle' with a description. The tool description adds no further parameter detail beyond 'one handle', so schema coverage (100%) carries the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: returning the full DXF attribute set for a single handle, analogous to AutoCAD's LIST command. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'entity_get' by noting that 'entity_get deliberately does not carry' dxf_attributes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by contrasting with entity_get: use this tool when you need the raw DXF attribute set that entity_get omits. It also provides coordinate system context (WCS). However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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