Drawing Properties (read)

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the live vs headless engine divergence, that the five summary fields return null with summary_available=false rather than empty strings (and why that distinction matters), and that custom properties are readable on both engines. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to avoid misreading results.

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?

Two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the return shape, then the engine caveat that justifies the second paragraph. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor cost is the leading 'DWGPROPS dialog' jargon, which assumes familiarity with AutoCAD's dialog name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation was optional, yet the description still supplies the engine-dependent semantics that the schema alone cannot convey. Nothing needed to interpret a call correctly 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The rich schema_description_coverage is irrelevant here since the input object is empty.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('drawing_properties_get' as 'The DWGPROPS dialog as data') and enumerates exactly what is returned: summary, summary_available, custom. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling drawing_properties_set without opening either schema.

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 the read-only nature and the returned fields, but the description never says explicitly when to call this versus alternatives such as drawing_properties_set or drawing_info. It does add the important nuance that results differ by engine, which is closer to behavioral than selection guidance.

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