inspect_drawing_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-mutating nature of the operation, which is the key trait for a geometry read, but says nothing about result truncation, the meaning of the limit, permissions, or performance/rate characteristics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and enumerates the returned data with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does enumerate the kinds of data returned, which partially covers the return-value gap. However, the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of any guidance on result size or truncation leave the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% and the single parameter 'limit' (min 1, max 20000) is never mentioned in the description. The description does not clarify whether the limit caps entities, dimensions, or text items, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Read') plus the resource and enumerates exactly what geometry is inspected: units, model-space extents, entity coordinates, dimension values, and text. This clearly separates it from write siblings like draw_line or move_entity, though it does not explicitly contrast with read siblings such as list_modelspace_entities or count_modelspace_entities.

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 phrase 'without modifying the drawing' implies a read-only inspection context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the obvious alternatives (list_modelspace_entities, count_modelspace_entities) that also read modelspace data. The agent must infer which read tool fits.

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