xenmark_list_drawings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination behavior even though a cursor parameter exists.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the prerequisite appended. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, no nesting and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and where the required id comes from. The only gap is that it does not mention the cursor/next-page flow, though the schema does document it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by telling the agent where project_id must be obtained (xenmark_list_projects or xenmark_find_drawing). That sourcing guidance is real added meaning not present in the schema.

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?

It names the resource (drawings) scoped to one project and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The listing verb is implied rather than stated, and it does not directly contrast itself with the similar-sounding siblings xenmark_list_revisions or xenmark_find_drawing, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It states the prerequisite that project_id must come from xenmark_list_projects or xenmark_find_drawing, which implies the calling context. However, it never says when to prefer this list over xenmark_find_drawing for the same data, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.

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