Drawing Info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: document_id is minted when the drawing is opened or created, revision moves on every content change but not on save/export/finalize/delivery, and stale active-document binding is refused with a specific active_document_changed error carrying bound and active. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to interpret results and handle failure modes.

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 purpose and then structured into return fields, document_id/revision semantics, and the active-document error condition. It is appropriately sized, though the explicit field list partly duplicates the output schema and could be trimmed.

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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with an output schema, this description supplies the critical semantics that the schema alone would not convey: revision lifecycle, document identity, and active-document mismatch behavior. Nothing necessary for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on return values and behavioral constraints instead.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive metadata for the current drawing.' It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings such as drawing_properties_get, system_status, or drawing_understand.

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?

Usage is implied by 'current drawing' and by the detailed return fields, so an agent can infer that this is the metadata-introspection tool. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and no exclusions or routing to sibling tools.

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