Drawing: Preflight

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true declares the tool as read-only. The description mentions 'normalize', which could be misinterpreted as a modification, but likely refers to output normalization without side effects. The description adds limited behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as 'validate' implying a check-and-report function. A score of 3 is appropriate because the annotation carries most of the transparency burden.

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 a single, efficient sentence (9 words). It earns its place by conveying the core purpose without verbosity. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the key action more prominently, hence not a perfect 5.

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?

With 8 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema present, the description is minimal. The output schema relieves the need to explain return values, but the description does not mention that the tool returns validated/normalized requirements or any error reporting. It is adequate but leaves the agent wondering about the full capabilities.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the input schema already documents most parameters. The high-level description ('validate and normalize requirements') provides context but adds no specific meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema offers. The baseline 3 is correct; the description does not compensate for the remaining 25% undocumented parameters.

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 verb-resource pair: 'validate and normalize requirements before committing a drawing plan.' It positions the tool as a pre-commit step, distinguishing it from drawing creation or finalization tools. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from closely related siblings like 'drawing_plan' or 'drawing_critique', preventing a higher score.

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 alternatives. While the name and description imply it should be used before finalizing a drawing, there is no explicit statement of context, exclusions, or prerequisites. This leaves the agent uncertain about the appropriate invocation scenario.

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