Validate Drawing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies no modifications. However, it does not disclose further behaviors like whether checks are run sequentially, output format, or performance implications. Given annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds minimal additional transparency.

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 (two sentences plus a bullet list) with no redundant language. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the action and listing the checks.

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 simple read-only validation tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description provides enough context for an agent to use it. It explains the available checks and the input parameter. Missing details about return structure are likely covered by the output schema, so completeness is high but not perfect.

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 100% (the 'checks' parameter description lists the three check types). The description repeats this list in a structured format but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 runs quality checks on the current drawing and lists three specific checks (empty_layers, zero_length, duplicate_entities), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analysis_layer_stats or drawing_audit, as it focuses on a predefined set of validation checks.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool for validation checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as drawing_audit or analysis_layer_stats. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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